Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Norwich Electric Tramways Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Glasgow Corporation Bill.

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Lanarkshire County Council Bill.

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

HAULAGE ROADS (CLEARANCE).

Mr. TINKER: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to a number of fatalities in mines on the haulage roads caused through the low roof which has allowed but a bare clearance above wagons; and whether he will consider amending the Mines Act to give a clearance of at least two feet above the wagon?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am advised that it would not be practicable to enforce a general requirement of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, and moreover, that it is a sudden variation in clearance,
rather than its absolute amount, which is most apt to result in accidents.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that just recently in Lancashire—in the St. Helens district—two fatal accidents have occurred from this cause, and that at the inquest the coroner drew attention to it; and does he not think that further means should be taken to prevent these accidents happening?

Mr. BROWN: I assure the hon. Member that this matter is receiving the closest attention.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these conditions not only involve loss of life but great difficulty with regard to ventilation, and will he examine this question with a view to some remedy being found?

Mr. BROWN: I do not think that such an examination is necessary. The point raised in the question of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is a general one, and it is to that point alone that I have addressed my reply.

WAGES.

Mr. MAINWARING: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines in how many of the coal-mining districts of the United Kingdom has the standard rate of wages and/or the minimum percentage rate payable thereon varied since 1929; and will he indicate the amount of the variation in each case?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I am not clear what the hon. Member means by "standard." If he refers to basis rates, in which changes are frequently negotiated at individual collieries without affecting the district as a whole, no detailed information is available.

With regard to the minimum percentage additions to basis rates, the following statement shows the changes which have occurred since 1929, most of which took place in 1931 as a consequence of the reduction of working hours in 1930:

District.
Month of change.
Nature of change in minimum percentage.



1930.



South Derby
December
…
Reduced from 35 to 27.*


Bristol (Coalpit Heath)
January
…
For pieceworkers, reduced from 33⅓ to 25, and for others from 35⅓ to 27



1931.



Cumberland
August
…
Reduced from 30 to 22½.


South Derby (except enginemen, firemen and mechanics).
January
…
Increased from 27 to 35.*



April
…
Reduced from 35 to 30.*



May
…
Reduced from 30 to 29.*


North Staffordshire
April
…
Reduced from 35 to 32.*


Cannock Chase
April
…
Reduced from 42 to 40.*


South Staffordshire
April
…
Reduced from 40 to 38.*


Leicester
April
…
Reduced from 40 to 32.*


East Bristol
April
…
For pieceworkers reduced from 22 to 15 and for others from 24 to 17.


South Wales and Monmouth
March
…
Reduced from 28 to 20.


Scotland
August
…
Reduced from 110 to 100.



1932.



North Staffordshire
January
…
Increased from 32 to 35.*



1934.



South Wales and Monmouth
October
…
Increased from 20 to 22½.



1935.



North Staffordshire
January
…
Increased from 35 to 37.*


* Subject to certain percentage additions in the case of pieceworkers.

JUVENILES (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. TINKER: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider revising Section 92, Sub-section (2), of the Mines Act, 1911, which forbids any boy or girl of or above the age of 13 years or any woman to be employed for more than 54 hours in any one week, or more than 10 hours in any one day, by reducing the hours mentioned?

Mr. E. BROWN: Having in mind the other restrictions embodied in the same Clause, I doubt whether the full time allowed under the Section is often used. If the hon. Member has any information to the contrary, I shall be obliged if he will let me have it, although I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of legislation at present.

Mr. TINKER: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that some parts of the Mines Act are almost obsolete, and that the time has come for some revision?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Although the Secretary for Mines has said that he cannot bring in legislation, could he not, in view of the cases which have been brought to his notice, bring this matter to the
attention of the mine managers? If he would do that, these long hours would be stopped.

Mr. BROWN: There are other sections which apply to this matter, in addition to the one quoted in the question, and that fact bears on my answer. If the hon. Member would like to have the various sections affecting the matter, as well as the one mentioned in the question, I shall be glad to send him a copy of them.

PENSION SCHEMES.

Mr. T. SMITH: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many pension schemes are in operation in the mining industry applicable to wage earners, apart from staffs, agreed to between the workpeople and the employers; and what approximate number of employés is covered by such schemes?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have no information regarding such schemes of this nature as may exist.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Denaby Main scheme; and will he have inquiries made with regard to that scheme, and circulate such
information as he is able to obtain regarding it?

Mr. BROWN: I shall be very glad to find out what I can about any particular scheme, but the hon. Member will understand that these schemes are agreements between the owners and the men.

GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 5.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many objections have been lodged against the draft regulation for the compulsory use of gas detectors underground; the nature of such objections; and whether the objections are to be submitted to a referee appointed in accordance with the Coal Mines Act, 1911?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have received notification of one general objection to the draft regulations, the effect of which would be to exclude, for the purpose of the regulations, the provision and use of any flame safety lamp as a gas detector. I am in touch with the parties concerned, but am not yet in a position to answer the last part of the question. If the hon. Member will repeat it on 2nd April, I expect then to be able to reply.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries are using automatic gas detectors; and whether he is in possession of any recent data from colliery companies as to their efficacy?

Mr. BROWN: Automatic firedamp detectors are at present in use in substantial numbers at nine collieries, and in smaller numbers or on trial at about 50 others. The most useful recent information as to experience gained with them is contained in a paper by Mr. R. Bingham, agent to the Staveley Coal and Iron Company, Limited, which was read before the Colliery Managers' Association in January, and published in the technical Press. That experience was generally satisfactory.

PIECE RATES (STOPPAGES OK WORK).

Mr. MAINWARING: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour in how many instances since 1929, to the nearest available date, have stoppages of work taken place at one or more pits on account of efforts by the respective employers to reduce the existing piece rates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): During the six years 1929 to 1934 the returns collected by my Department indicate that there have been 56 stoppages of work in the coal mining industry which were reported to be primarily due to proposals made by employers for reductions in piece or tonnage rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

AUSTRALIA.

Mr. CHRISTIE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the market for Australian cattle and beef has been seriously diminished as a result of the action by the Commonwealth Government; and whether he will suggest to Mr. Lyons at the forthcoming discussions upon meat that, instead of seeking an unlimited market in the United Kingdom and thereby jeopardising the interests of the meat producers of this country, the Commonwealth Government might first endeavour, by a modification of Australian fiscal policy, to recover the markets in Java and Belgium which have been lost owing to the Australian sugar embargo and the tariff on sheet glass?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I can assure my hon. Friend that all relevant considerations will be taken into account in connection with the forthcoming discussions with the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr. PALING: Does the Under-Secretary accept the statement in the question that, if a country imposes tariffs, it thereby loses markets for its own products?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the statements contained in this question?

Mr. MacDONALD: I have answered the question by saying that all these matters, whether we agree with them or not, will be taken into account. One of the matters that we are considering is whether we agree.

ITALY (PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what
extent British exports to Italy will be affected by the new quotas which that country is proposing to impose on all imports into Italy; and whether any re-presentations will be made in the matter?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the terms of the provisional trade agreement between this country and Italy; and what concessions it contains with regard to recent restrictions which have been placed on British trade with Italy?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Pending the conclusion of a definitive agreement, His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government have come to a provisional agreement with regard to United Kingdom imports into Italy. Under this provisional agreement, 80 per cent. of all United Kingdom imports into Italy in the corresponding period of last year are to be admitted into Italy subject to the following method of payment. The Italian importer will deposit the required lire in the Italian National Institute for Foreign Exchange, those lire to remain untouched until the institute shall dispose of sufficient sterling for transfer to the United Kingdom exporter. The cost of any exchange operation will be borne by the Italian importer, who will thus meet his sterling liability in full. The Italian Government guarantee that all devisen accruing from Italian imports into the United Kingdom as from the date of signature of the provisional agreement shall be devoted exclusively to the payment of United Kingdom imports into Italy. Arrangements have been made to allow United Kingdom goods to enter Italy at once in accordance with this agreement. The quota restrictions established by the Italian decree of 16th February specified varying percentages for different classes of goods, but in no case did the percentage exceed 35 per cent., and in numerous cases complete prohibitions were involved. Full details of these restrictions were published in the Board of Trade Journal for 28th February and 7th March. The effect of the provisional agreement is to make the quotas in all these cases 80 per cent. of the corresponding imports into Italy last year, under the conditions I have explained. The quotas already in existence
before 16th February are not affected. Negotiations for a definitive agreement will be undertaken as rapidly as possible.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that these quota restrictions which have been imposed by the Italian Government are a definite breach of the provisional agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The provisional agreement was made subsequently to the imposition of the restrictions.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Will the 80 per cent. apply in particular to each commodity, or is it a general restriction? For instance, in relation to pilchards, with regard to which I have put questions to the right hon. Gentleman, do we understand that immediately 80 per cent. of the previous export of pilchards to Italy can now be resumed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; the 80 per cent. refers to the different categories.

Mr. FOOT: Can the export of a commodity which has been held up in the meantime be proceeded with as the result of the agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; I said in the course of my reply that arrangements have been made to allow United Kingdom goods to enter at once.

Commander BOWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in any further negotiations which may take place with the Italian Government, the interests of the iron and steel industry, which have been very adversely affected by this decision of the Italian Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The provisional agreement applies to all commodities.

Mr. MANDER: Is it hoped still further to increase the quota as a result of subsequent negotiations?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say what will be the result of the negotiations until they have been completed.

COTTON INDUSTRY (SPINDLE RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking in reference to the resolution of the Cotton Redundancy Committee requesting him to prepare a Bill to give effect to the proposals already
approved by the industry for dealing with surplus cotton-spinning spindles?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In response to the resolution, the proposals have been discussed on my behalf with the committee in Manchester. The terms of a draft Bill are now under discussion, and I hope that the Bill will be introduced at an early date.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, from the information before him, that an adequate number of surplus spindles has been proposed to the board to justify the bringing in of legislation; and, secondly, when the legislation is brought forward, will it include terms of Government assistance more substantial than a mere guarantee?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think my hon. Friend had better wait for details until the Bill is introduced. As to the first part of his question, I am satisfied that there is now a sufficient volume of opinion behind this proposal to make it worth while to bring in legislation.

RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now inform the House as to the action which has been taken by the British Government with reference to the importation into Great Britain of Russian timber under a fall clause and at prices with which it is impossible for Canadian timber to compete?

Captain P. MACDONALD: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the result of the negotiations between the Russian timber interests and Timber Distributors, Limited, with regard to the omission of the fall clause from the contract for the importation of Russian timber into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) on the 14th March. I understand that Timber Distributors, Limited, and the White Sea Timber Trust have now started negotiations for a revised contract.

Sir W. DAVISON: May we have an assurance that in future no contracts with the Soviet Government containing
the fall clause will receive the sanction of the Board of Trade?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that, with the exception of small quantities of costly timber, the prices of timber sold by Canada were lower than the prices charged for Russian timber?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot express a general opinion on that subject, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are so many different varieties and classes of timber. With regard to the inquiry made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), I can only say that, so far as this contract is concerned, it has fallen down on the fall clause.

Captain MACDONALD: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon his effective action in this matter, will he see that the quantity of 400,000 standards is not exceeded this year, as it was last year, by some 10 per cent.?

Mr. THORNE: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to put an embargo on the importation of Russian soft timber, will he, if it is found that there is not sufficient soft timber for building purposes, persuade the Russian Government to send more timber?

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the reason for his intervention in this contract?

BACON IMPORTS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that Lithuanian bacon which is selling in this country for 70s. a hundredweight is sold in the Channel Islands for 20s. a hundredweight; and whether he will take this fact into consideration in reviewing the question of whether the existing quota arrangements for controlling bacon imports into this country are the best that can be evolved?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there is a considerable difference between the price of bacon on this market and on other markets. For the rest I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on 28th February.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to see that this channel is not used as a means
of breaking through any quota imposed upon foreign countries or on any other trade agreement?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say with regard to the last half-dozen words in the question?

BRAZIL.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the agreement with Brazil which is now being negotiated, arrangements will be made for the provision of exchange relating to goods cleared prior to 7th April, 1934, in respect of which the shippers are not covered by deposit of milreis?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reply which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 7th March was in a form agreed with the Brazilian Financial Mission, and I am not at present in a position to add to it. As the hon. Member will see from that reply, it is hoped that the agreement embodying the results of the negotiations with the mission will be signed during the course of the next two or three weeks and the text will be published immediately thereafter.

Mr. FOOT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion ask me to put down a question on this specific subject?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, and I can only repeat the invitation.

COTTON IMPORTS, AUSTRALIA.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were Australia's imports of cotton piece-goods (yardage) in 1933 and 1934 from the United Kingdom and Japan, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The latest period for which the desired information is available is the year ended 30th June, 1934. During that period the imports into Australia of cotton piece-goods of United Kingdom origin were 125.0 million yards and, of Japanese origin, 48.3 million yards. These figures are provisional and unavoidably include a small quantity of linen piece-goods. The corresponding imports during the year ended 30th June, 1933, were 153.7 million yards of United Kingdom origin and 46.4 million yards of Japanese origin.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is lineal yards or square yards?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (LAND BONDS).

Mr. STOURTON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will take steps through the proper channels to inquire from the Irish Free State Government the total nominal amount of Four and a half per cent. Land Bonds still outstanding to be issued to those owners of property who had their property compulsorily purchased in 1931 under the Free State Land Act of that year, and also the amount of arrears of interest due to bondholders; and what action is being taken or is contemplated between the two Governments concerned to negotiate a speedy liquidation of the bondholders' claims?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made into the matter. He hopes that he will be in a position to make a statement if the question is put again in a fortnight's time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPS (ALIEN SEAMEN).

Brigadier-General NATION: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his inquiries are yet completed into the question of the bona fides of seamen who sign on at foreign ports on British ships claiming British nationality; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: This is one aspect of the general question of the employment of aliens in British ships now under investigation by my Department, and a statement on the subject must await the result of the investigation.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he anticipates that there will be some decision on this matter? Will it be in the course of the present Session?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope so.

Dr. ADDISON: May I ask who is making the investigation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is being done by the Department.

Mr. WEST: Will the investigation be made in the case of all sailors in British ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Everyone.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DISTINGUISHED AND MERITORIOUS SERVICE (AWARDS).

Brigadier-General NATION: 22.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the rewards for distinguished or meritorious service referred to in the annual Estimates and paragraph 675 of the Royal Warrant are awarded for services rendered before retirement or since retirement; how many such awards in each of the ranks of general and colonel have been made in the last year; and whether their names are published in any official document available to the public?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): These rewards are made primarily in respect of services rendered before retirement, but would cover services rendered during any period of re-employment in the Army after retirement. Of the awards made during the past year, 10 were made to general officers and six to officers of the rank of colonel. The names of these officers are not published.

Brigadier-General NATION: In view of the general interest in this matter, would it not be possible to publish the names of these officers and the reasons for the granting of the award? Surely, this cannot be a matter of secrecy?

Mr. HACKING: Every award has to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State in person and by His Majesty the King, and, as the consideration of means comes into these awards occasionally, it is not thought desirable that the names should be published.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY (ADDRESS).

Mr. NUNN (for Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX): 21.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with reference to the recent address to the cadets of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, by the President of the Board of Education on the subject of Indian constitutional reform, whether
there is any precedent for the delivery of an address at the Royal Military Academy or the Royal Military College by a Member of the Government on a controversial subject now before Parliament; and whether he will take steps in future to protect the students at the Government institutions from political propaganda?

Mr. HACKING: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. The address in question was not of a political nature; it was intended to give the cadets at the Royal Military Academy an outline of conditions in India, which is a subject of importance to their education. As regards the remainder of the question, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no record of a Member of the Government ever having addressed the cadets on a controversial subject which was before Parliament, either at the Royal Military Academy or at the Royal Military College.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we to understand that no reference was made to the Government of India Bill by Lord Halifax in his address?

Mr. HACKING: I did not hear the address, but I understand that my Noble Friend was so careful, knowing that there were many in the audience who were opposed to his views, that there was not the slightest criticism of his address by anybody who listened to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING (TERREGLES, KIRKCUDBRIGHTSHIRE).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 23
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1), whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture has now decided to take action on the bad housing conditions at Terregles smallholdings colony, Kirkcudbrightshire: and, as the proposals made for granting loans are such that it will be economically impossible for the smallholdings to accept them, what steps he intends to take in the matter;
(2), whether he is aware that a loan granted in connection with housing at Terregles, Kirkcudbrightshire, in 1923–24 of £560 when the bank rate was 5 per cent. is being repaid by an annuity of £11 2s., and that the proposed loans in 1935 for
£415 when the bank rate is 1 per cent. are to be repaid at £16 10s. annually; and whether he will endeavour to have this matter rectified by reduction in rates of interest and extension of period of repayment;
(3) whether he is aware that the new houses at Terregles are required to replace slums created by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland 10 years ago; and whether he will extend the facilities of subsidy or grant equal to those provided to replace privately-owned slums to smallholders which will enable them to house their families decently?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The Department of Agriculture for Scotland are taking action to replace certain houses at Terregles which were on the estate when it was acquired by the Department. An exceptional lowering of the rate of interest to 1¼ per cent. coupled with a lengthening of the period of repayment from 50 to 80 years was authorised in the early years after the War because of the high costs of building construction but this practice was modified in 1933 following a very material reduction in building costs. The terms on which building loans have been offered in connection with the replacement of the older buildings at Terregles are those which are normally now offered and accepted in similar cases. I am satisfied that these terms (namely, interest at 3⅛ per cent. and repayment in 50 years) are not unduly burdensome on the holders and are such as should properly be accepted.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (PETROL CONTRACT).

Sir W. DAVISON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now state the results of his further inquiries regarding the contract placed by Glasgow Corporation with Russian Oil Products, Limited, for 3,000,000 gallons of petrol, although they had received a cheaper tender from a British firm?

Mr. TEMPLETON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now been able to make further inquiries into the placing of a contract by the Glasgow Corporation with Russian Oil Products for 3,000,000 gallons of petrol; whether he is satisfied that the normal sanctity of sealed tenders was not observed in this case; and what steps he proposes to take in order to ensure that
public interests in Scotland are properly protected in future with regard to such matters?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. The tenders were received by the Town Clerk and in accordance with the usual practice were opened and initialled by the Convener of the Municipal Transport Committee, and thereafter sent to the Manager for examination and report to the Committee. On the information before me I am not satisfied that the circumstances disclose a need for limiting the discretion of local authorities in the placing of contracts. At the same time it is to be regretted that the whole contract has gone to a foreign firm.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the fact that the Russian Oil Products were given an opportunity of reducing their original tender below that of the British firms, and that the British firms were not given a similar opportunity; and does the Minister think that that is a procedure which his Department ought to look upon with satisfaction?

Sir G. COLLINS: It is very difficult to answer such a question by way of question and answer in the House of Commons. The negotiations were numerous and varied and extended over several days, and before I could give a specific answer to the specific question I should require to have the question placed upon the Paper.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact—and it is a very simple question—that the Russian Oil Products were given an opportunity of reducing their tender which was in excess of the tender of British firms? Surely, that is a very simple question?

Sir G. COLLINS: That may well be so, but at the same time the other contractors were given an opportunity, but there were long drawn out negotiations.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a similar question on the 7th March and received an unsatisfactory reply from the Secretary of State, and I gave notice to raise the question on the Adjournment. I am afraid that the reply is still unsatisfactory, and, as it is not a subject which may be dealt with by question and answer,
I ask for your ruling as to whether I can still raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can raise the matter on the Adjournment whenever he likes.

HIRED DRIFTER, SHETLAND.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 29.
asked The Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to replace the chartered drifter, recently stationed on the west side of Shetland, which has been wrecked off Burravoe?

Sir G. COLLINS: The hired drifter which went ashore in Shetland on the 23rd February was immediately replaced by the chartering of another drifter, which has been on duty in Shetland waters since the 28th February.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the object of this new vessel?

Sir G. COLLINS: The object is to deal with illegal trawling.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has it been worth while?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes. It has been amply justified.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART (for Mr. GUY): 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the scientific advisory committee of the Department of Health on maternal mortality and morbidity, and when their report is likely to be published?

Sir G. COLLINS: Every effort is being made to expedite publication of the report. The inquiries have involved the scrutiny of over 42,000 cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL CONSTRUCTION, FRANCE.

Mr. MANDER: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the proposal of the French Government to lay down a capital ship of 35,000 tons during the present year, whether, having regard to the fact that France has already laid down 53,000 tons of capital ship replacement tonnage, it is proposed to make any representations to the French Gov-
ernment on this subject as being contrary to the provisions of Part I of the London Treaty, particularly Article I, and of the Washington Treaty, particularly Article III of Chapter 1, and Part III, Sections 1 and 2, of Chapter 2?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The French Government, although they signed the London Naval Treaty, have never ratified it, and the question whether the proposed construction would be contrary to the provisions of that treaty does not therefore arise. Under the terms of the Washington Treaty, France may lay down altogether 175,000 tons of capital ships in replacement. France also expressly reserved the right of employing her capital ship tonnage allotment as she might consider advisable, subject to the limitation that the displacement of individual ships should not surpass 35,000 tons. Under these provisions the French Government, therefore, would be within their rights in laying down a 35,000 ton capital ship this year, and it is not proposed to address any representations to them on this subject, as the desire of this country to obtain by international agreement a substantial reduction in the size of capital ships is well known to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY (CONTRACTS).

Captain HEILGERS: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that beet-sugar factories are in many instances either refusing contracts to previous growers or offering them a considerably reduced acreage; and, seeing that this large reduction is not in accordance with the conditions under which a subsidy was granted for the years 1935 and 1936 crop, can he now make a statement clarifying the position?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The further interim measure of assistance to the beet-sugar industry for which the Government propose to invite Parliament to make provision is confined as announced on 6th February to the 1935 crop. It is limited to the produce of 375,000 acres as against, 404,000 in 1934. This reduction in acreage must inevitably be reflected in the contracts.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENTONVILLE PRISON (DEMONSTRATION).

Major MILNER: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what authority the police prevented a band playing outside Pentonville Prison as a protest against the continuance of capital punishment?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): It is among the general duties of the police to prevent obstruction and to preserve order in the public streets. Their action would have been the same whether the demonstration had been in favour of or against capital punishment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. LEVY: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether the police measures which are to be employed to enforce the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit in built-up areas involve an increase in the number of police engaged upon traffic duties; and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. LEVY: 34.
asked the Home Secretary how many additional police cars will be required, and what total number will be required, to carry out the police plans for enforcing the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit in built-up areas; and what is the estimated cost of the additional cars?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Increases will no doubt be made in the number of police engaged on traffic patrol and in the number of vehicles in use for that purpose, but the numbers will vary from time to time according to the varying circumstances in every force, and I cannot give details of either numbers or cost.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will not part of this extra cost fall on the London police fund and have to be borne by the London rates?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Naturally, some part may fall upon the rates.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the increased number of the traffic police will be arrived at by a diversion of police from their existing duties or by increased recruitment?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The actual numbers must depend upon the claims made on the police. I hope that we may not have to increase them unduly.

Mr. LEVY: Is the House to understand that this increase may mean transferring police from traffic duty to this special duty or, alternatively, will special police be engaged for this duty?

MOTOR INSURANCE.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state his reasons for writing a foreword to a booklet issued by the Eagle, Star, and British Dominion Insurance Company suggesting the taking of motor insurance policies with that company?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no such suggestion contained in my foreword. Some time ago I made a public appeal to all insurance companies to assist the campaign for road safety. The company in question immediately responded by preparing a booklet of guidance which they offered to circulate to two million policyholders. I gave my approval to this as being in the public interest, and I am prepared to take the same course with any similar company which in addition to covering its policy holders against road accidents will do even better and tell them how to avoid them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. DORAN: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the financial activities of alien film producers who, having been placed in liquidation in their own countries, are now seeking to exploit the British public; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent their doing so?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of the persons to whom he refers, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. DORAN: I shall be glad to provide the right hon. Gentleman with the information.

Mr. DORAN: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that British film production has now reached a stage of real efficiency, he will consider initiating proposals for the revision of the percentages allotted under the Film Quota Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As at present advised, I am not prepared to initiate legislation to vary the quotas for British films laid down in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927.

Mr. DORAN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that endeavours are being made to defeat the Film Quota Act through a system by which many of the principal film corporations with American interests have set up subsidiary renting organisations; and, in light of this, whether he will take steps to ensure that the primary intention of the Act is fulfilled?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no knowledge of the system to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall be pleased to consider any information he may place before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL AREAS (HOUSE BUILDING).

Miss WARD: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the special commissioner to arrange for the building of houses in the areas he serves; and, if so, what information can he give the House on the subject?

Mr. HUDSON: The Commissioner has this matter under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Miss WARD: May we have a statement on the subject at a very early date or on the legislation which is now being discussed in regard to housing?

Mr. HUDSON: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the information will be given as soon as we are in a position to give it.

Miss WARD: Can the hon. Member say whether it is the intention of the Commissioner to build these houses from money directly obtained from the Treasury, without any financial obligation on the local authorities?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORWAY (ANTARCTIC TERRITORY).

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will support the Norwegian
claim in the Antarctic and facilitate the annexation contemplated by Norway?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Government have no information that the Norwegian Government have made any claims to, or are contemplating any annexation of, territory in the Antarctic at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAKE DISTRICT (TOWN PLANNING).

Mr. MANDER: 41.
asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken in the Lake District to form a joint town-planning or advisory committee?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is glad to be able to say that the county councils of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire have now formed a joint committee to advise on the planning of the Lake District.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (CHINESE EGGS).

Mr. WEST: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the memorandum on Chinese eggs, issued by the Scientific Poultry Breeders' Association, of which a copy has been sent to him; and will he take steps to prohibit the import of such eggs?

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of unfavourable reports on the inferior condition of Chinese eggs prior to or after packing in liquid form introduced into this country, he will instruct his inspectors to enter premises where such egg products are being used for human consumption and instruct them to make tests to ascertain the condition of the egg liquid, either by taste or by smell, with a view to condemning them if found unfit for human consumption?

Major DAVIES: My right hon. Friend has considered the memorandum referred to, and on the general question of Chinese eggs he would refer to the answer given on the 14th March to my hon. Friends, the Members for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), copies of which are being sent to the hon. Members. As regards Question No. 43 the inspection of food is a function of the officers of local authorities
and not of my right hon. Friend's Department, and as at present advised he does not think it necessary to draw their special attention to this matter.

Mr. WEST: Does the hon. and gallant Member not consider that the facts given in the statement in the memorandum should be either confirmed or proved to be untrue? If they are true, does he not think that in the interests of public health these eggs should be prohibited on the ground that even if they are not impure they must be inferior?

Major DAVIES: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Member has said.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. and gallant Member also call attention to the fact that it is very little good subsidising agriculture in this country if these cheap Chinese eggs, produced under the unsatisfactory conditions referred to in the question, are allowed to come in?

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: Was not an assurance given that a bacteriological examination would be made of these Chinese eggs. Has that been done, and, if so, what is the result?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is it not a fact that if a case of these eggs has been opened for a week it is impossible for the inspector to get near them?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEEWARD ISLANDS (SUGAR ESTATES, ST. KITTS).

Captain HEILGERS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent outbreaks of violence on sugar estates in St. Kitts have ceased; and what steps are being taken to prevent the recurrence of such outbreaks?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of his question, I am awaiting a report from the Governor of the Leeward Islands on the origin of the trouble. On receipt of this I shall consider what steps it may be possible to take to prevent the recurrence of such disturbances.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he is not aware of the cause of the outbreak of violence?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Mr. BERNAYS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether in recent years there have been any occasions when the Leaders of the Opposition have been invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir. In 1930 and 1931 invitations were extended to members of the Opposition to attend meetings of the Committee and Sub-Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Mr. BERNAYS: Seeing that the Labour Government issued invitations to the Opposition to attend the meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence, will His Majesty's Government consider the advisability of extending the same kind of invitation to the leaders of the present Oppositions?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Prime Minister also say whether the invitations in 1930–31 were generally to attend and act as members of the Committee of Imperial Defence, or to attend only for a specific purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: For a specific purpose only. There is no variation. There is only the question of when the invitations are to be issued.

Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand that since the National Government came in there has not been any occasion when it was thought advisable to invite the leaders of the Opposition to attend?

The PRIME MINISTER: Circumstances have not arisen.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in spite of the recent Mexican budget surplus and large favourable trade balances, the Mexican Government continues to default in respect of its foreign obligations; that the agreement entered into in 1922 between the Mexican Government and the international committee of bankers for the resumption of interest payments and the
funding of arrears of interest lapsed after the first year, and that subsequent new agreements concluded in 1925 and in 1930 have not been carried out; whether he will consider securing the co-operation of the United States of America, France, and other countries concerned in bringing economic pressure to bear upon the Mexican Government to amend its present policy; and whether, further, he will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the Mexican Government can never again borrow money in London until it has met all its outstanding obligations?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the foreign bondholders of Mexico are entitled to better treatment than that which they have received from the Mexican Government. I am informed that on the 8th January last the Mexican Ministry of Finance published a statement to the effect that the Mexican Government confirmed their declaration that Mexico recognises her financial commitments abroad: that she will not be able during 1935 to make any payments) in respect of the service of her foreign debt, but that during the year the Government will make a study of the question, and will in due course make public the decisions reached. His Majesty's Government will continue to watch the situation in the interests of British bondholders. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 4th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Commander BOWER: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether consideration has been given to the report of the Private Members' Economy Committee of 1932; which of the recommendations contained therein have been put into effect; and what has been the resultant reduction in national expenditure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; the Committee's suggestions were carefully considered and although in a number of cases the detailed proposals were found to be incompatible with the policy of His Majesty's Government, I was glad at the time of the assistance which they afforded
me in my task of effecting economies. In view of the enormous field covered by the Committee—their report ran to over 130 pages—I cannot undertake to make the elaborate analysis which the last two parts of the Question would require.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why since this report was published Supply expenditure has increased by more than £50,000,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is in consequence of legislation and votes passed by this House.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling in the country that some of the recommendations made by this Committee should be further considered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly specify the recommendations to which he refers.

Commander BOWER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether enough money has been saved by the recommendations of this Committee in 1932 to meet their expenditure in publishing this discarded but still valuable report?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN (EXPLORATION PERMITS).

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Irak Petroleum Company and the Palestine Potash Company have been carrying out surveys and exploring in the region at the south end of the Dead Sea in spite of the fact that His Majesty's Government announced in October last that no permits would be granted until the mining legislation had been revised and enacted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Permits to explore for oil were granted in 1933 to the Iraq Petroleum Company, in certain areas of Palestine and Transjordan, and to the Palestine Mining Syndicate in certain areas of Transjordan. I have no reason to think that any such permits have been granted since the decision announced in October, 1934, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the representatives of these two
companies had been working in these areas from mid October till the November rains with drilling apparatus and under police supervision?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That may be so, but what I said was that no new permits have been granted during the period of the concession, but, of course, permits granted before are still in operation.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Is it not a fact that a British group under Dr. Homer has been refused a permit although they were the original applicants and that they understood that no one is to be allowed to work these concessions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong. In granting the original permits for exploration, I have no doubt that the Government of Palestine and Transjordan exercised their discretion in granting permits to those they thought most qualified, but there has never been any suggestion that permits already granted should not continue in operation.

Lieut.-Colonel TODD: Is it not a fact that the information given to the British company was that until the Palestine mining laws were revised and re-enacted no one would be granted a permit to explore or survey?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. They were told that no new permits would be granted to anybody until the new law was in operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (MEDICAL SERVICES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people reside in Colombo and how many doctors are practising in the city?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In 1933, the latest year for which figures are available, the estimated population of the municipality of Colombo was 294,420. According to the medical register for the same year the number of medical practitioners registered in Colombo was 182. I am not in a position to say what actual percentage of these doctors, or other practitioners registered outside Colombo, actually practise within the municipality.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many
doctors are practising in Ceylon; how many of them confine their activities to the large cities; and what medical service, if any, is available for workers in the country areas?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The latest figures available show the number of medical practitioners registered in Ceylon as 811. The figures for Colombo were given in my reply to the hon. Member's preceding question. There is no other town of comparable size in the Island. In addition to private practitioners the authorised establishment of the government medical service is 351 medical officers and medical officers of health, and 683 apothecaries and sanitary inspectors, but it would be difficult to say precisely what proportion of these officers devote their services to country areas. In 1933, outside Colombo, there were 89 government and 84 estate hospitals; the number of hospital beds provided by government being approximately two per thousand of population. In addition 626 central and branch dispensaries and visiting stations were maintained by government and 727 dispensaries by estates.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the comparative smallness of the number of doctors resident in the rural areas is more or less responsible for the heavy death-rate during the malaria outbreak, and will he therefore encourage steps to provide medical services for the outside areas?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In reply to the first question, I should very much hesitate to express an opinion on an expert medical matter. With regard to the second part of the question, I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate the fact that under the Ceylon constitution the number of the medical service is primarily, indeed almost exclusively, a matter for them.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we to understand that the medical service is a transferred service to the new Government in Ceylon, and no longer a matter for the British Parliament? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this may be largely the reason for the recent epidemic?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR DEFENCE (INQUIRY).

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement as to the steps which the Govern-men are taking to provide defence against aerial bombing?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are not content to assume that there can be no protection against bombing except counter-bombing. As the House knows, a small Committee of very eminent scientific men was appointed some time ago by the Air Ministry and has already made concrete proposals for a promising line of research for which the necessary funds have been made available and preliminary experiments already started.
The Government have always recognised, however, that the inquiry requires the co-operation of all the defence departments and of civil departments and may necessitate at any moment the services of other public institutions. We have, therefore, decided to appoint also a special sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence through which the Air Ministry Committee will report to the Committee of Imperial Defence itself. This sub-committee will have the direction and control of the whole inquiry, and the necessary funds to carry out experiments and to make researches approved by this committee will be made available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Prime Minister state whether there is any change in the business for Thursday, and what will be the business on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is an alteration in the business announced for Thursday. We shall not now consider the Government of India Bill, but debate foreign affairs on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Afterwards it will be necessary to pass the Report stages of the Navy, Army and Air Estimates. On Friday, we shall take the Government of India Bill in Committee.

Colonel GRETTON: How far do the Government expect to get on Friday, which is a short day?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be left a good deal to the Committee to get on with the business as expeditiously as it can, which has been the mood hitherto.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the Debate on foreign affairs to be a continuation of the Debate that we had last week, roaming over the whole field?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be a Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting-, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 46.

Division No. 110.]
AYES.
[3.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Boulton, W. W.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Conant, R. J. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cook, Thomas A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cooke, Douglas


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Copeland, Ida


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cranborne, Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Apsley, Lord
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cross, R. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley, Lord
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Assheton, Ralph
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Davies, Maj. G. O. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davison, Sir William Henry


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Carver, Major William H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm. W)
Doran, Edward


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Christie, James Archibald
Duggan, Hubert John


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Dunglass, Lord


Bernays, Robert
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Blindell, James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Borodale, Viscount.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Loftus, Pierce C.
Salmon, Sir Isidore.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Salt, Edward W.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mabane, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Evans, R. T, (Carmarthen)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKeag, William
Savery, Samuel Servington


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shaw, Helen B, (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Somervell, Sir Donald


Goff, Sir Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Graves, Marjorle
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Stevenson, James


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick
Stones, James


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Storey, Samuel


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
North, Edward T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Nunn, William
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Palmer, Francis Noel
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Harris, Sir Percy
Patrick, Colin M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hartington, Marquess of
Pearson, William G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tree, Ronald


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Potter, John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Turton, Robert Hugh


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pybus, Sir John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Ward, Irens Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Jamleson, Douglas
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rankin, Robert
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wells, Sidney Richard


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rea, Walter Russell
Weymouth, Viscount


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Remer, John R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lees-Jones, John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rickards, George William
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Levy, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Rothschild, James A. de
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mliner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Logan, David Gilbert
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Stephen Owen
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to extend their existing quays; and for other purposes." [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate and confer powers on the Marlow Water Company; and for other purposes." [Marlow Water Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the removal from a portion of the Golders Green (Jewish) Burial Ground, in the borough of Hendon, of the restrictions attaching thereto so as to authorise its use for building or otherwise; and for other purposes." [Golders Green (Jewish) Burial Ground Bill [Lords.]

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION) BILL [Lords],

MARLOW WATER BILL [Lords],

GOLDERS GREEN (JEWISH) BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C [Title amended].

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1935; AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934.

SIR PHILIP SASSOON'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

3.45 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave tie Chair."
I have this afternoon to introduce, not only the Air Estimates for 1935, but also a Supplementary Estimate for the current year. This is for the sum of £200,000, and consists almost entirely of the moneys required to get the expansion scheme under way. The largest single item is for the purchase of lands and the commencement of work at certain stations as part of the very extensive but necessary construction programme which will be carried out during the next few years. As a matter of fact, the only sum which we are asking for in this Supplementary Estimate under Vote 4—Works, Buildings and Lands—is for £150,000. This is only the first instalment of a commitment which will eventually amount to several millions. I think otherwise the House will find that the Supplementary Estimate is self-explanatory, but, if there are any questions which hon. Members wish to put to me about it, I shall be glad to answer them at a later stage.
With regard to the Air Estimates themselves, these show a gross total of £23,851,100 and a net total of £20,650,000, representing additions to our anticipated air expenditure for the coming year of £3,685,500 and £3,089,000 respectively. For the first time since I have been privileged to introduce the Air Estimates, I am presenting Votes which show a substantial accession to the air strength of the nation. In past years I have regularly found myself in these Debates on the Air Estimates in the unhappy position of a kind of modern St. Sebastian, assailed indeed by arrows from all sides, but lacking the comforting assurance that I should in due course reap the rewards of martrydom. From one side of the House have come the
clothyard shafts of those hon. Members who considered our provision for the air defence of this country inadequate; from another side the barbed bolts of those who would like to see the immediate abolition of all armed forces.
I do not expect to escape a similar fate to-day, and therefore, in anticipation of the attacks of the second category of my assailants, I would remind them that the small increase which was brought in last year was then plainly indicated to be an earnest of our intention to proceed to more serious measures if there did not shortly follow a general reduction of air armaments. A year has gone by and the reduction for which we have worked so patiently and so sincerely for so many years has not come to pass. The failure to date of the Disarmament Conference to achieve agreement made necessary the statement by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council when he announced last year that the Government had no longer any option but to proceed with our very long-delayed programme. Since then, the questions of air strength and the air defence of these islands, have been the subject of much general discussion and in particular of a weighty Debate in this House.
These facts and events must have been present therefore to the minds of Members in this House, and must have prepared the way for these Estimates. We are not warmongers nor are we influenced by warmongers—if such anachronisms still exist in this country. We have deliberately allowed ourselves to sink to fifth place among the air forces of the world and postponed for 10 years a programme which in 1923 was declared to be the minimum one for the safety of these islands. We have done these things in the hope that other countries would have followed our example. We have done it in the cause of peace. What has been the result? We have stripped our defences to the bone, and the result has been that our weakness has not only become a danger to ourselves but a danger even to the cause of peace. We therefore are now pursuing peace by a new road without abandoning the old one. Surely, it is not without significance that the most promising step towards the elimination of air warfare in Europe was taken since the policy of expansion was announced. Until such time as we can persuade other nations to disarm, a
stronger British Air Force will enable us to play our part more effectively in this Air Pact which is even now under discussion by the Western Powers.
Let me now deal with the other group of my critics. Are the arrangements for increasing the Air Force adequate? Again, I would refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in November last. He then went very fully and frankly into the whole question of comparative air strengths and showed that, so far as could be foreseen, the air strength of this country would be adequate for our needs in the immediate future. He showed that it was not practicable to look farther ahead than that. At this point I should like to digress for a moment and correct a perspective which I think has been rather distorted of late. A great many inaccurate figures have been bandied about and an unduly black picture has been painted of our weakness in the air. We have been told that we are eighth among the world's air Powers, and that our equipment is not nearly so modern as that of other European air forces. I have seen public statements to the effect that our air strength is no more than that of Rumania. As a matter of fact, in terms of first-line aircraft our strength is four times that of Rumania. I only mention that to show the lengths to which exaggeration will go.
Another thing which has caused a good deal of confusion in people's minds is the different methods which various countries adopt to state their aircraft programmes. For instance, when the United States of America announced their programme and said they were going to add several hundred aircraft to their air services, that did not simply mean additions to their first-line strength, but the total number of aircraft to be held, including machines for new formations, as well as those to be purchased to displace existing machines that have become obsolescent and those held in reserve against wastage, training machines, and so forth. The 41½ additional squadrons that we propose to add to the Air Force during the next four years have been described as an addition of 500 machines, and have been contrasted with the much greater American figures. As a matter of fact, if we adopt the American method
of stating their intentions and include all the machines required for expansion, replacement and all other purposes in one comprehensive figure, we shall be ordering over 1,000 machines for the Royal Air Force in 1935 alone.
The fact is that we remain fifth among the world's air Powers in first-line strength, and we have made it clear that that is a position that cannot be allowed to continue. Of the four nations that outnumber us, there are two, the United States and Italy, which outnumber us by relatively small margins. It is only in relation to the air forces of France and Russia that we find ourselves in a position of serious numerical inferiority. France has a first-line strength of 1,650 machines. I do not know definitely what the exact figures are for the Soviet, but from what we can hear the corresponding Russian figure exceeds 2,000.
There is a further point that I should like to emphasise. First-line strengths form the readiest basis for a simple comparison between air forces, but they are far from being the only criterion. In all those other factors that go to make up a powerful and efficient air force our Air Force can still challenge that of any other nation in the world. Behind every one of our first-line aircraft there is a background of organisation of unrivalled thoroughness. We have always up to now built solidly, and we intend to continue to do so. It would be the height of folly to rush up a mere facade of numbers. If I may take a single illustration. I have just mentioned that two countries, the United States and Italy, slightly outnumber us in terms of first-line aircraft, but, as a matter of fact, the Royal Air Force to-day possesses more qualified pilots on the active list than either the American or Italian Air Forces. We have similar reserves of strength in other directions, while, in relation to France and Italy, our machines are of more modern construction and superior performance, although both these great nations have already embarked on very large programmes of modernisation and re-equipment. There has just reached this country a most interesting report by a powerful independent commission which has been investigating the whole field of aviation in the United States. It contains a passage which is so eloquent that I make no apology for reading it:
The past year has been marked by incessant attack, using every available medium of publicity, upon the quality of American military aircraft. It has been alleged that they are in every essential respect hopelessly inferior to corresponding machines of European origin. It is an interesting commentary on the state of the public mind that these charges seem to be essentially similar to those being made at the same time in the very countries which have been held up to the United States as examples to imitate. The Press of Great Britain has rung with assertions of the remarkable qualities of American aircraft and the inability of the available British military types to keep pace with" the American commercial machines. In France a section of the Press has debated furiously the rumoured inferiority of French military aircraft to those of most of the rest of the world.
I take some comfort from that fact that our own, stern critics of everything that we do and are, and of everything that we have, have apparently their precise counterparts all the world over. So that, if those critics have their way and we are to be court-martialled because of the alleged deficiencies of the Royal Air Force, we may at least hope to face the firing squad in the excellent company of those who are responsible for the American, French, and other military air services. The House will, I hope, forgive this digression, in which I have endeavoured, in regard to these important matters, to throw a little light into dark places—or places which have at least been much obscured by ill-informed comment. I have done so in no spirit of complacence. Our numerical weakness is serious and cannot be allowed to continue; and we have much leeway to make up.
We have, further, a very strenuous programme of re-equipment before us; for aviation, both military and civil, is going through a period of rapid development. Aircraft which were quite adequate for the needs of yesterday are not adequate for the needs of to-day, still less for those of to-morrow. We have, therefore, had to take special steps to shorten the time hitherto taken to bring new types into production. That the British industry will rise to the occasion, I am quite confident. What the world thinks of their products may be judged from the fact that no fewer than 29 foreign countries use our aircraft and 33 our engines, and that our export trade in connection with these matters rose in 1934 by 31 per cent.
To return to my previous theme. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that, certainly for the present, there can be no question of any reduction of the minimum scheme decided upon last year. It will still be necessary to continue to scan the situation here and abroad with the same watchfulness at all times and to be ready to alter our programme as circumstances may require. The next obvious and necessary question is, Are we making sufficient headway and progress with the July scheme? The House will realise that it is no use providing personnel and technical equipment until you have the aerodromes and the stations for them. Nor is it policy to acquire aircraft and engines beyond the capacity of the personnel. The several tasks of acquiring aerodromes and stations, training pilots and mechanics and providing engines and aircraft each take different periods of time. It follows that the expansion of a highly technical service like the Royal Air Force requires a very delicate process of synchronisation. It follows, therefore, that a very large part of our attention is concentrated at present on the provision of stations and aerodromes, accompanied by a more modest provision for material and personnel. The proposals with regard to the increase of personnel are included in Vote A, but perhaps I may explain that the increase of 2,000 men there shown from 31,000 in 1934 to 33,000 in 1935, is really an increase of 3,500, because we did not reach our 1934 maximum.
As regards the immediate increase of our air strength, as the House knows, we are to have this year an additional 11 squadrons for home defence, and the equivalent of one and a half squadrons for the Fleet Air Arm. That will mean that the home defence force will consist of 54 squadrons in 1935, 13 of which will be on an auxiliary or cadre basis, and there will be 21 squadrons still to form to complete the present programme of 75 squadrons for home defence. The first line strength of the Royal Air Force to-day is 890 machines in regular squadrons, and 130 machines, approximately, in non-regular squadrons, which makes a total of 1,020 machines. At the end of this year, the figure will come up to 1,170, and the 1936 programme will bring it up to a figure of 1,310.
There is one point consequent on the growing strength of the Royal Air Force
that I would like to mention. It is in connection with the partial reorganisation of the Service side of the Air Ministry. As the House knows, we have now a fourth Service member of the Air Council. The reason for this addition has been to keep pace with the expansion, and to be able to give more time to the very great increase in administration which the expansion scheme entails. It will enable the Chief of the Air Staff to give more individual attention to the major problems of strategy and training, and the Air member for Research and Development to concentrate more effectively on his own current problems, progress in regard to which is so vital at the present time.
I will turn for a few minutes from the Royal Air Force to that equally vital sphere of air development—civil aviation. The year 1934 has been one of striking progress—a year in which, in fact, plans have been laid which promise still greater progress in the future. As regards our Imperial air services, we have seen, first, the extension of the Indian service to Australia, and, secondly, the duplication of the existing weekly services to the Cape and Calcutta. These are solid achievements, and reflect great credit upon the management of Imperial Airways, which company, while forging ahead with these Imperial developments, has maintained its commanding position among the European services. In fact, in 1934, as in 1933, Imperial Airways carried across the Channel a substantially larger number of passengers than all their foreign competitors—Dutch, Belgian, German and French combined. I submit that this is a striking tribute both to the efficiency of their organisation and also to the remarkable goodwill which they have built up among the travelling public. The weight of letters which was carried was larger than that which was ever carried in one year, namely, 122 tons compared with 85 tons in 1933—an increase of 43 per cent. I am told that 122 tons represents 6,000,000 letters, which shows that people have not given up writing letters for the moment, anyhow. The Christmas mails were also very heavy, and a greater weight of parcels was carried over the Channel than was ever carried before. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon.
Friend the Postmaster-General for the very great assistance he has given the Air Ministry in their task of developing civil air transport, by the forward policy he has adopted with regard to air mails.
Another very satisfactory development of the past year was the formal ratification with Italy of a 10-year agreement whereby Imperial Airways will be able to fly freely over Italian territory on our Imperial services. With regard to France, an understanding of a similar kind was arrived at just before Christmas. Within the next month or two Imperial Airways plan to operate an interim service through to Brindisi with small machines, primarily for the carriage of mails. A full service by large aircraft cannot be brought into operation until their fleet has been augmented. As hon. Members know, a very large demand has been made upon it as a result of the recent decision to duplicate the African and Indian services. The year 1934 also saw a very satisfactory development of our internal air services, no fewer than 17 different companies operating at one time of the year. In non-commercial flying, also, there has been a very satisfactory advance. As this matter is to be raised later in the Debate, I will not say anything more about it except to say that—contrary to the Jeremiads we have heard in some quarters—on a basis either of our respective national incomes, or of our populations, there are proportionately more private pilots' licences in this country to-day than in the United States of America. Not that we are satisfied with these figures. We want to see them very largely increased, and during the year we have taken very active steps to effect that, of which I will tell the House later.
The House will also wish to know something about our air transport plans. As regards the immediate future, we are taking money in these Estimates for a feeder service to connect the West African Colonies with the trunk route at Khartoum, and also to link up Singapore with Hong Kong and Bangkok on the Australian line. I am sorry that we have not been able as yet to inaugurate the Bermudan service, but hope, however, to be able to do it in a short space of time.
Turning to our long-range plans, as I announced before Christmas, the Post Office, the Air Ministry and Imperial Airways have been in co-operation for many months past on a scheme which represents the most far-reaching step forward in our Imperial air communications. Perhaps I may repeat its main features to hon. Members, although I believe they are more or less familiar with them. We aim, first, at a great increase on existing frequencies; secondly, at a striking acceleration of existing time schedules; and, thirdly, at the carriage of all first-class mail matter by air. There will be four or five services a week to India, three to East Africa and Singapore, two to South Africa and Australia, and seven or eight services a week to Egypt. We hope later on even to do better than that, but I may say that no other country in the world has yet formulated schemes for the carriage of the whole of its first-class mail matter by air without surcharge.
Since it has been suggested that this scheme owes its origin to the remarkable speeds achieved in the Melbourne race last October, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that the Air Ministry, after a very great deal of preliminary spadework, had laid these identical time schedules and frequencies in full detail, together with the proposal for the carriage of all first-class mail matter by air, before the Government a year ago, and many months before the Melbourne race. Not that we have not lessons to learn from such races, and the House and country must indeed have been proud of the magnificent achievement of those two skilful and courageous aviators, Scott and Black. We have received invaluable help from the Post Office in the elaboration of these schemes. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General hopes that, in so far as concerns letters posted in the United Kingdom for Empire destinations, we shall be able to provide these immensely improved and accelerated postal communications in the region of 1½d. per half ounce.
A scheme of this magnitude cannot be planned and brought into operation in a few months. In the first place, we have greatly to improve the existing ground organisation on our Imperial routes, especially for night flying. Plans
have been in preparation for many months past in these matters, and will entail a very considerable expenditure. Hon. Members who, later on, are going to complain that we are not spending enough on civil aviation, might remember that. These Estimates provide only for the first instalment of the commitments which we shall have to meet. Apart from that, first and foremost I may say that the scheme depends upon the full and willing co-operation of the Dominions, the Colonies and India, with whom we are continuing in satisfactory negotiations. It also entails the raising of £2,000,000 of fresh money, most of which will be spent, of course, on a new Air Fleet. Therefore, in the light of all these considerations, on the most favourable hypothesis, I do not think that this scheme will come into full operation before 1937. That seems a long time off, but the years have a knack of going by very quickly. The development of our inland services also depends upon further ground organisation. During the course of the past year we have made very great progress with the establishment of wireless and meteorological facilities, and we hope that that progress is going to continue this year. Here, too, and in particular, we intend to make a beginning with the provision of the necessary equipment for night flying. We look for a steady growth of internal services, and here again we hope that the Post Office will be able to help us by giving these services the necessary minimum loads which might otherwise be lacking.
I think there is a great chance for the expansion of those services, but I should like to enter a caveat. Although there is great scope for their expansion it would be idle to expect to sec a development on the scale that we have seen in the United States of America, anyhow in the near future. The conditions there are fundamentally different. No amount of expenditure, even if the money were available, could reproduce them in this country. To begin with, the area of the United States is, I believe, 40 times that of Great Britain and Ireland, and we must not overlook the fact that the very large governmental expenditure of £25,000,000 in the years 1927–33 have left American air transport in a far from healthy condition economically. This huge governmental expenditure is only the beginning of the tale. Over and
above it the investing public have put a far larger sum into American air services, and most of their money, I am sorry to say, has gone for all time. If I might quote again from the very interesting official report from which I quoted just now, it puts the capital losses in the aeronautical industries over the last few years at nearly three-quarters of the total amount invested. Those losses are apparently estimated at the colossal figure of 460,000,000 dollars, or £95,000,000 at par of exchange. This vast sum has vanished like gossamer in the sun.
I suggest that while we must go steadily forward we should at all events do everything we possibly can to avoid a similar state of affairs in this country, for despite all this lavish private and governmental expenditure the same official reports brings out that in October, 1934, the latest month for which figures are available, the American air transport industry as a whole was still making collective losses at the rate of about £750,000 a year. Not even the Post Office budget for air mail payments of over £3,900,000 in the current year has enabled the majority of the services to break even or to get anywhere near breaking even. In the light of these figures the Commission sum up the situation as follows:
It appears, in short, that financial disaster is in the making for a large part of the present air transport system; whether it makes its appearance in six weeks or six months or longer, we cannot see how it can be postponed indefinitely.
Imperial Airways, on the contrary, despite the very much smaller financial assistance from the State, continue to show a reasonable profit. If, therefore, we have not yet seen a development of our air transport system on the scale we should like to see it we can take comfort from the fact that we have built solidly if not showily, and on these solid foundations we plan in the next few years to erect a substantial superstructure. In short, whilst it would be folly to disregard the remarkable progress which American air transport, thanks to unlimited expenditure, has been able to achieve, and from which we have many lessons to learn, I submit that there are other lessons and that there are certain features in American air transport that we should be at pains to avoid in this country. There is one type of aircraft
in particular in which American development has been very striking, and that is the fast medium-size commercial transport machine, although the majority, if not all, of these machines produced to date would be incapable of economic operation on our Empire routes. There has hitherto been no real demand for this type in the United Kingdom, but in the near future it does seem that there may be a definite scope for an economic machine of this character, though we shall continue to require larger machines, capable of carrying much bigger paying loads, as the main units for our Empire services. We have, therefore, decided to take special steps to encourage British manufacturers in the development of an economic aircraft of this kind, and I am in a position to announce this afternoon that we intend to offer a prize of £25,000 for the best machine produced by any United Kingdom firm within a stated period of time and complying with certain broad requirements to be formulated by the Air Ministry. Further details will be made public in due course.
Stress has very rightly been laid upon the need of planning for our internal air services, that is to say the forecasting of the focal points of air traffic and the main lines along which it is likely to flow. The need of such planning was foreseen some time ago by the Air Ministry, and we have been in consultation for many months with the Aerodromes Advisory Board of which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) is Chairman. The board has put up a definite proposal to the Air Ministry for an air transport survey of these islands, which is now under consideration. I would like to pay a tribute to the Aviation Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce for all the preliminary work which they also did in this connection. The Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Gorell, which was still sitting when these Estimates were introduced last year, has completed its labours and presented a most valuable report. The thanks of the House are once more due to the three members who served on the committee for the work they have done for civil aviation. The Air Ministry have adopted the major recommendations of the committee, including those for the devolution of airworthiness work to a new and unofficial body and the institu-
tion of a compulsory system of third-party insurance.
Civil aviation is so large a subject and at the same time so important a one that it would be impossible for me to traverse the whole of it without taking an undue proportion of the time of the House. Therefore, I will leave it to Members to raise at a later stage in this Debate any further points they wish to question me about, and proceed at once to a short survey of the individual Votes. I have already referred to Vote A. Votes 1 and 2 show no more than the normal increase which one would expect from the additional personnel we shall be entering in connection with expansion. Vote 3 not only provides for technical and war-like stores but also for the experimental and research services and for the purchase of new aircraft and engines. For the first time in our history the gross total of this Vote exceeds £10,000,000. It shows an increase of £1,300,000 on last year.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down will he read again the very important figures of British air strength which he gave? He read them so quickly that it was difficult to follow them.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: And would the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the figures include the Fleet Air Arm?

Sir P. SASSOON: I said that this year the first-line strength of the Air Force was 1,020 machines, that next year it would be, as far as we could foresee, 1,170, and the following year 1,310.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are these machines, or machines as defined under first-line strength?

Sir P. SASSOON: They are first-line machines. I will repeat what I have said. Vote 3 stands at £10,000,000, an increase of £1,300,000. We shall be ordering this year nearly 100 per cent. more aircraft than were budgeted for in the current year, and a very largely increased number of engines. Therefore, we must expect to see this Vote substantially increased next year. Vote 4 is a vote for works, buildings and lands, and shows the largest increase of any of the Votes. At £3,145,000 it shows an increase of nearly
£1,500,000. It provides for the commencement of work at 10 new stations as well as a new air armament school at Manby and for the enlargement, improvement and adaptation of 12 existing stations under the expansion scheme. As I have said, on this Vote must depend very largely the rate of progress of the expansion scheme. Hon. Members will be interested to see under this Vote further provision for the new air base at Dhibban. I had the opportunity of personally inspecting it last year on my way to Singapore, and was very favourably impressed in every way by its suitability for its purpose, the amenities that it offered and the progress that had been made. I do not think there is anything in the next three Votes on which I need comment. Vote 8—

Captain GUEST: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to Vote 7?

Sir P. SASSOON: If there is any point on Vote 7 which my right hon. and gallant Friend wishes, to raise perhaps he will do so later. Vote 8, which is one of the important Votes for civil aviation, at a net total of £595,000 shows a rise on last year of 16 per cent., and if we take into account that the subsidy to Imperial Airways is going down it is really an increase of 31 per cent. of last year. I think this ought to give satisfaction to hon. Members, especially when we think that in view of all our far-reaching plans this Vote will certainly show a substantial increase in the future, when these plans, especially those in connection with our Imperial schemes, come to fruition.
The only other Vote I will mention is Vote 10, which makes provision for the Air Ministry. Here again there is a considerable increase. The Department with the greatest increase is the department of works and buildings, where substantial additions to staff have had to be made, so that the expansion scheme may not be delayed. Much of the additional staff, however, will only be necessary for the next three or four years. If there are any other matters regarding the Estimates which hon. Members wish to ask me about I shall be very glad to answer them later in the Debate.
I will now pass on for a few minutes to a review of the activities of the Royal Air Force during the course of the last
year, which hon. Members have come to expect on these Estimates. This year it will not be a very long one, not because the activities of the Royal Air Force have been less—rather the contrary—but because the activities have become more systematised and more effective. In 1934 there were very few of those events of news value such as have enlivened the daily papers in other years. I do not know that the personnel of the Royal Air Force or the Ministry are any the worse pleased for that. Hon. Members will have seen in the Press that we propose to construct two experimental aircraft of special interest, one for high altitude and one for long distance flying. If the development of those machines is satisfactory we shall, at a suitable stage, make attempts on the world's records for altitude and distance. That does not necessarily mean any departure from our policy. We do not intend to construct machines solely for the purpose of achieving records, but where, in meeting the general requirements of research and development, an assault can be made, as it were in our stride, on some record, the attempt will be made.
Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force are pressing on conscientiously with their normal and regular work. Last year I spent a certain amount of time in justifying the use of air control in those semi-civilised portions of the world on which so much of our Empire abuts, but this year there is no need for elaborate justification because the methods have justified themselves. In many cases there have been threats of air action, and in almost every case the threat alone has been sufficient. Hon. Members may be interested to know that in one isolated instance, where air action had been taken against a tribe for looting caravans, travellers have since then found the trade route to Aden from the Yemen safer than many of our citizens find their own highways. The peccant tribe to which I referred, the Quteibis, are apparently a peculiarly inquisitive people, and they frequently find it impossible to resist asking travellers what actually are the contents of their caravans, to which inquiry travellers invariably reply with a wink: "An Air Force officer."
The Royal Air Force have as usual been flying a series of long-distance flights by which we may maintain and stimulate mobility and at the same time acquire
a great deal of information which is useful and practical for civil and military purposes. Last year the many exercises included journeys by land machines from the North West Frontier of India to Singapore and back, from Malta to the Sudan and back, and by flying boats from Singapore to Hong Kong via Borneo and the Philippines, returning by Indo-China and Anam, and thus making the whole circuit of the South China Sea. This year we propose to extend the journeys and to increase the number of machines taking part. It is also proposed that they should be accompanied by transport aircraft for carrying personnel and stores, a method which was very successfully employed last year in a flight from Egypt to Iraq.
I have now only a few comparatively small points of general interest with which to complete my review. I mentioned last year an experiment which had been going on since 1933 of flying a British Service squadron on fuel made from British coal; I am glad to say that we now have nine squadrons flying on fuel produced by low-temperature carbonisation. The results have been, on the whole, satisfactory. We have made steady progress during the year in the increase of horse power for given sizes of engines, due very largely to the use of fuel of a higher octane number. Special attention has been paid to the reduction of the head resistance of engines, a matter of increasing importance as the power of engines becomes greater. Perhaps the most striking engine advance of the year has been that of an air-cooled engine operating by means of a sleeve valve. This follows upon many years of research and shows great promise. Experiments are continuing with compression ignition engines, and during the last 12 months they have shown good progress. Doubts of those engines being able to operate at high altitudes have been removed. Indeed, in May last, an aircraft fitted with one of these engines established the world's altitude record for compression ignition engines at a height of 28,000 feet. Technical developments in the air service are obviously important and frequently interesting, but their name is legion, and it is impossible to do more than touch upon a very few of them. The success of the Oxford and Cambridge University Squadron has decided the Ministry to
continue with a third of these squadrons at the London University.
On more than one previous occasion in presenting these Estimates I have felt impelled to refer to the adverse effect which the uncertainties of the future of the Royal Air Force and the delay in the defence programme might have on the morale of air personnel, were that morale less high and less finely tempered. Today the position is reversed. The Royal Air Force stand on the threshold of a period of expansion, and our difficulty is how to effect the 50 per cent. expansion in four years without deterioration of efficiency and of physical and intellectual standard. I am confident that the problem will be solved and that the expansion will be effected without any falling off in those high standards which the country has come to expect from the Royal Air Force. I realise that by now, the House knows me for an enthusiast, and I remember a characteristic remark in one of the letters of the late Lord Balfour. He wrote:
It is unfortunate, considering that enthusiasm moves the world, that so few enthusiasts are to be trusted to speak the truth.
Nevertheless, I have good hope that the House will accept my assurance and share my confidence on this occasion that the Royal Air Force of 1938 will be greater in strength and number, but no whit less great in quality and morale, than the Royal Air Force of 1934. The Government and the Ministry have so arranged the various stages of expansion that the leaven of the existing personnel will have ample time to work upon and permeate the new. There is among the young men of Great Britain ample raw material of the best kind, both for officers and men. Great as are the trust and responsibility that must rest upon the air defences of this country and of the Empire, I am quite sure that the Royal Air Force, during and after the expansion, will face up to them with the same fine spirit and the same high skill and courage which have already become traditional in the Service.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating the right hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary of State for Air, despite his enthusiasm, on the great success he has
achieved in resisting the temptation to indulge in flights of imagination and in making the development of the Air Force easy of comprehension to pedestrian people like myself. As usual, he has given the House a good deal of detailed information regarding the work of the Service which he represents so worthily in this House, but I regret that he was unable to discuss policy to a greater extent than he did. Perhaps he was under the difficulty, to which he referred and with which we sympathise. He said that he was trying to follow a new road without leaving the old one. It is very difficult to wend one's way to one's destination unless one takes a single road. The right hon. Baronet should be warned against the danger that comes of staying too long at the cross roads, because the cross roads is a traditional place of execution. He referred later on in his speech rather lugubriously to the fate which awaits him and people who share his responsibility at home and abroad and I sympathise deeply with him on his anticipation of a sad end.
We are satisfied that there must be some better reason than has been given to the House for the increase in the Estimates, and I hope before the Debate is finished that we shall be told exactly why large numbers of additional men and machines are required. We have listened to speeches from the Lord President of the Council and the Foreign Secretary recently, and in recent Debates we have been discussing problems verging upon policy in the air, but we have not had the advantage of discussing in detail the exact part which the air forces are to play in whatever circumstances are to follow. If there is to be an increase in the amount that is spent and in equipment and personnel for this force, we should have been given more detailed reasons in the White Paper and in the memorandum upon the Air Estimates. The Government have made up their minds to leave the relatively low position in which we have stood in the order of air strength, and to make a direct line for superiority in the air as we have long had superiority on the seas.
The right hon. Baronet is not responsible for the other two Estimates, but this year there is an almost equal addition in expenditure on each of the three arms. No question of policy can be dis-
cussed without taking into consideration the part to be played by and the amount of expenditure on the Navy and the Army, as well as the Air Force. We find that there is to be considerably increased expenditure on each of these three forces, and I think the House would be doing itself justice if it tried to assess the part to be played by each and by the three in combination in any circumstances for which armaments are provided. I am not competent to do that myself. I am not a military, an air, or a naval expert, but since the Air Force came into existence these military discussions have never been, and will never be, exactly the same as they were in the days before the War, when these matters were so frequently considered and were indeed the main subject of discussion in this House for many years.
I find in, I think, seven paragraphs in the White Paper on defence references made to the failure of the Disarmament Conference and the need for this rapid expansion of the Air Force. I think it is in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12, and again in paragraphs 23, 24, 25, and 26 of the White Paper that there is this insistence upon the need for a rapid expansion of the Air Force because of certain events that have taken place in connection with the general question of disarmament. We have been told that the Disarmament Conference has failed and that because of its failure it has been necessary to make these additions, which are very considerable. While the amount of expenditure in all these three cases is the same, the percentage addition to the air expenditure is very much higher than the percentage addition on the Navy or the Army. I therefore think the House would be right in following, for a very brief period of time the reasons for the alleged breakdown of the machinery of disarmament and the maintenance of peace, and in asking whether that breakdown is to be regarded as final and whether the machinery has been irreparably damaged.
I think we should not be invited to give our endorsement to Estimates of this kind without being told exactly why these additions are required and what is the Government's version of the causes of the breakdown of the Disarmament Conference. We have, on a number of occasions, taken part in discussions on the question of the provision of an Air Force,
and I find that we had as far back as 1930 a Draft Disarmament Convention, which was signed by a large number of States, one of the special features of which draft Convention was to make provision for the discouragement of military aviation and for international co-operation in the development of civil aviation. Then we found that each of the important countries taking part in that Conference took a very definite line. All of those great countries were in favour of the total abilition of military and naval air forces and for the international control of civil aviation.
Having regard to the nature of this force and the appalling consequences of engaging in international struggles with this new and terrible weapon, it is a tragedy indeed that we have failed to come to an agreement with the other countries of the world in a plan whereby this terrible weapon might be kept off the battlefields of the world for all time and this dangerous weapon brought under the control of an international agreement for the maintenance of peace and the abolition of war itself. We found then that there was no difficulty with Germany. Germany took up a very special position, and demanded, by specific requests, the prohibition of all military air forces, and she maintained that position for more than three years, in face of repeated discouragement. She maintained that position indeed until 1933, when changes in Germany of which we are all aware altered her position. In 1933 Germany did not relinquish her claim for the abolition of air forces, but claimed that if other people were to have air forces, she should be given equality in armaments.
France's effort has been much better than our own in this respect. France has been criticised frequently because of her attitude towards peace and disarmament, but I have a very strong sympathy for France, because she is a smaller country alongside a much more powerful neighbour, which she fears very much, and which she has cause to fear in a world such as that in which we live. But France has given a very clear lead to all other countries in this matter. France has urged that the air forces should all be controlled internationally. She has made a demand that there should be an international air force and also
that there should be the internationalisation of civil aviation.
As I listened to the right hon. Baronet, I could not help sharing his pride in the wonderful development of civil aviation, which is a great achievement. The impossible has become the commonplace, and great epics are performed day after day by men, undistinguished, unnamed, in the service of this new and most brilliant enterprise upon which man has become engaged. But when one remembers how easy it is to convert civil aviation, carrying its millions of letters a year and passengers in regular service from one part of the world to another, it becomes clear to anyone who desires disarmament in the air that civil aviation should be brought as completely under international control as military aeroplanes themselves. So we have found that the obstruction has not come from France, or Germany, or even from the United States of America. America too has been quite willing to come to an agreement on the question of the internationalisation of civil aviation and the disarmament of the air forces. Proposals were made by Mr. Hoover in July, 1932, and from the United Kingdom statement on those proposals I quote the following:
There is no aspect of international disarmament more vitally urgent than the adoption without delay of the most effective measures to preserve the civilian population from the fearful horrors of bombardment from the air.
I would like the right hon. Baronet, without attributing to him any lack of sympathy, to say why it is that we all agree upon the frightfulness of bombardment from the air upon European towns and cities, but do not concede the same frightfulness when it comes to bombarding from the air villages on the frontiers of India or in Iraq. In either case we are bombarding the homes of men and women and destroying life. It has been done. The right hon. Gentleman said he was happy to announce today that there had been few air raids on any of those frontier villages, and that the sharp lessons taught to these tribesmen had had their effect. This year, I think he said, there were very few such raids, and they were not very serious. But one air raid on an Indian frontier village is just as much a crime
as would be the larger air raid which we might yet see made upon the City of London, with terrible, horrifying results to the population here.
This question of protecting the civil population from bombardment from the air has been discussed at these conferences to which I have referred. The Governments of the United States of America, of France, of Germany, and of Great Britain have been discussing this matter, but after many commissions and committees have been appointed and all these problems have been discussed over and over again, we are no further ahead even now, and the right hon. Gentleman has the responsibility placed upon him of asking for increased provision for our air armaments in order that we may at some future date be in a position to destroy life more fearfully and terribly. That is the object of all this preparation, and it is because we have that heavy possibility in our minds that we shall invite the Government to consider, not the promotion of these Estimates, but an alternative suggestion before we have finished this Debate tonight. The machinery has broken down, and we must try as far as we can to place the responsibility for the breakdown where it lies. I will quote from the "Manchester Guardian," a paper which is known to be fair-minded, courageous, and frank to friend and foe. The "Manchester Guardian," on the 29th May. 1933, said, referring to a Debate in this House:
Yesterday's Debate revealed an almost unanimous opinion in favour of the complete abolition of military and naval air forces. It is clear that the British Government has now a great opportunity. If it would drop its exception and propose the complete abolition of military and naval air forces and the internationalisation of civil aviation, it would carry the overwhelming majority of the conference with it.
The Conference did not go in that direction, because the Conference was never invited by the British Government to abolish military and naval air forces or to internationalise civil aviation. The proposal was never made. We temporised, we found excuses, and we begged to be excused from all responsibility. On this particular proposal to abolish bombing from the air, the Government, with the Ministers now responsible, opposed in the Conference its abolition. They said they wished to retain the right to bomb the populations
of India, Persia, and those borders of civilisation or, to use the euphemistic term used by the right hon. Baronet, the land on the frontier of civilisation, just beyond the limits of human decency. To carry out police duties in those areas the present Minister's chief insisted that we should not abolish bombing.
I would like to invite the Minister and the House to say whether we must go on with this policy. These Estimates refer to the three arms, each of which plays a separate part in defence and in offence, but which part is for offence and which for defence it is difficult to find. Certainly the Air Force is very potent for attack, and it does not play as great a part in the defence of the country as the other forces, but it is true of the Air Force that it fights all three forces. The Air Force fights an air force, an army, and a navy. It is not confined to any sea or land route, it recognises no frontiers, not even neutral frontiers, it takes it own way, it goes where it likes and delivers its attack where it likes, without regard to any obstacle that stands in its way. This Force does differ vitally from the Navy, which cannot go beyond deep waters. The Navy can truly be said to be an instrument of defence, but it can equally be an instrument of offence within its limit. The Army fights on land and can be used either for offence or defence, but the Air Force can go where it likes.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we are now experimenting with new aeroplanes with which we hope to defeat the altitude and speed records of the world. The altitude records are already very high, and there is this new idea of flying with minimum resistance in a rarified atmosphere miles above the earth, which will take the aviator out of sight and hearing, so that he can go just where he likes without the knowledge of the people who are to be attacked and then pounce on them suddenly without being seen or heard. This force is entirely different and carries war on to a new plane. It is not the kind of war we knew where trained men fight trained men. There is no longer any position or lines of defence. An inoffensive civil population may be attacked like a bolt from the blue by the instruments of this force, and damage beyond computation can be inflicted upon the populations of the countries with
whom we may be at war. The old ideas of fighting have gone altogether. This force will fight almost always behind the lines. Where there are lines of defence; where there are frontier posts these aeroplanes can easily go over. The air forces will find all the vulnerable points behind the fighting lines, where millions of people may be congregated, as in London, which will be the finest target in the world should unfortunately war occur. The old code of chivalry has been blotted out. There is no longer any chivalry, no standard of honour, no honour in fighting, and no idea of fair play. This new system is ruthless; it is frightfulness to the extreme.
We are now engaged in preparing for an increase of armaments with these terrible weapons with no end in view. The right hon. Baronet told the House that this is only a beginning, but we have not had described the aim we have in view. We are certainly going to be first in order of fighting strength. We have heard a good deal of the war of attrition, where men counted and the conditions under which men lived. In future it is the morale of the nation, the industrial capacity of the country, which will be tested, not the courage of a nation. Victory will go to the country which has the finest manufacturing equipment. As aeroplanes are multiplied, we shall reach a point where one country will cease to be able to secure material and labour enough to build aeroplanes, and victory will go to the country which is able to build an unlimited supply. It is a terrible prospect that we have in view. We would like the Government even now to resist the temptation to join what appears to be a European suicide club. That is the direction in which we are heading, all of us joined in a society for self and mutual-destruction. There are no limits of decency.
We have expressed our abhorrence of this kind of future hostilities, but we must offer our alternative. It is the responsibility that falls upon the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had two kinds of critics. I think that he lingered on the two roads because because he was not sure which of them was the more dangerous. We would like very much if he would come on to a single road, a straight road. We offer that road to him and to the Government. We want them to make a direct bid for peace while
there is yet time, and we believe that the line of peace can be found. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council (Mr. Baldwin), whom I often read, I quote sometimes with approval because I believe that he has a great deal of the common sense which is one of the chief assets of our nation. He does occasionally see the light, and occasionally tells the House of his vision. He once said that the most important of all the questions of disarmament was the question of disarmament in the air, for all disarmament hangs on the air. I think that it is true to say that at this moment if you could enter into a compact with the nations of the world not to use these air armaments, and to hand over these terrible weapons to an international body of control and the personnel and organisation even of civil aviation, to be used for transport and other peaceful purposes, you would find the way then to the disarmament of the other two forces. The right hon. Gentleman said also—this, I think, is a lesson that we should give to the House to-day:
Suppose the convention fails; I would not then relax for a moment, nor would the Government relax, the efforts, if a convention on our lines failed, to start work the next morning to get an air convention alone among the countries of Western Europe, even if we could not get in some that are far away, for the saving of our own European civilisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1934; col. 2077, Vol. 286.]
Not a word has been said about that to-day. Have the Government made up their mind that they cannot make that one bid, that they cannot start even tomorrow morning? We have reached a situation in Europe which is dangerous, not because anybody wants war—no one in this House, no one in this country, no one perhaps in the Parliaments of Europe wants war—but we are drifting, and a Government such as ours, with the freedom and confidence that a democratic system gives to any Government, that is free to speak to its own people and to receive the people's response, such a Government is pre-eminently responsible for making a declaration to the Governments of the world. Our Government, we believe, should now make up their mind to try to get back to the one road that leads to peace, and that road is through the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations, through the nations who are already associated, with each
other for this purpose but who have for some reason abandoned the pursuit of disarmament in the air, where disarmament hangs. I would like the Government to make up their mind to take that road back straight away, and to propose at a conference the international control of all kinds of aviation. You cannot distinguish between them. When you start making discriminations you get confusion at once. All aviation should be controlled by an international body. We have been committed to the Kellogg Pact and to other undertakings, and I do not think that there would be anything to be lost by asking that next week or as soon as can be arranged all the nations of the world should come together again, pledging themselves not to attack each other from the air and not to use these terrible weapons which must result in chaos and disorder if once the attack is started.
I remember when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs came forward with his idea of a four-Power pact in the air. His speech on the wireless was very interesting to listen to, and I remember that he used the illustration of A, B, C and D, four nations sworn not to attack each other, and that if either A, B, C or D launched an attack the nations represented by the other letters would come at once to their assistance and deliver a counter attack on the offending country as a means of deterring or penalising the country which was the aggressor. When I listened to him and when I read the White Paper that was later published I thought that it was the most foolish thing that could emanate from the mind of any responsible person, and I could not see how a thing like that could work. Try to imagine ourselves, France, Belgium and Germany. The element of surprise has always been a large element in war. Perhaps France would attack London, and then, it is said, Belgium, Germany and England would attack Paris in order to defend London from the French forces. The thing is stupid. What kind of control could anyone expect to have under these circumstances? When a nation is attacked, is it a question of a telephone call to the headquarters of the three other countries: "We have been attacked; will you please send aeroplanes?" or "We will meet you at Paris at five o'clock"? What a ridiculous statement. Why try to dodge the straight
course? Why not say: "Here is a terrible weapon forged by human ingenuity, a thing that can carry destruction and destroy populations by all kinds of lethal weapons on a scale hitherto undreamt of. Let us come together to harness, to control this terrible beast, and to prevent it from breaking loose and raining hell and destruction on us all."
I do urge the Minister to make representations to his colleagues in the Cabinet to try once again, by going into a Conference and making the proposal that we shall have control of all international air forces. There is yet time to save Europe, but there is not much time. We are discussing the details of these Estimates leisurely and comfortably here this afternoon, but if we find the 1,310 or a large proportion of these machines taking the air on any day this summer or in the near future we shall find that the world will never be quite the same for some time to come. This is a thing to be avoided. I make this appeal to the Minister, that we shall go there and pay the necessary price for peace. It is not a price in money. We shall not get peace by spending £3,000,000 more on the Air, or £3,000,000 more on the Navy. The price required of us for peace in future years is the price of the surrender of part of our national sovereignty. It must be so. We have already the League of Nations, and we made a surrender there. We make a partial surrender in every treaty or alliance into which we enter with any other country. There have been many partial surrenders already. Let us go the whole way and surrender this arm—surrender our national power and right to control our armaments in regard to this one arm. I feel sure that if we approach this question boldly, and make an appeal to the conscience of the world, the world can yet be roused to the fearful dangers that overshadow it now. I hope that the Minister and the Government, instead of proceeding with these Estimates and others of a similar kind that will follow, will make one bold and brave effort by going to a conference prepared to pay a reasonable price for peace. I believe that peace will then, and in no other way, ensue to the peoples of the world.

5.17 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I am sure it was a very great pleasure to the whole
House to listen to the speech of the right hon. Baronet. His speech was made particularly welcome, to me at any rate, and I think probably to other Members, by our consciousness all the time that, in telling us of the brilliant and gallant enterprises of the Air Service, he was not telling us of anything which he would not be willing, and probably able, to undertake himself. I do not think that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are ever so happy as when they are in that element over which they preside, and in that matter they do well and set a splendid example. The right hon. Baronet told us, and we applaud it and are delighted to hear it, of the marvellous development which he expected to take place on the civil side of aviation in connection with mails and passenger transport. It seems to us, for instance, a most remarkable thing that there should be a prospect, apparently in the fairly near future, of even more than a daily mail service to Egypt, if I took the figures rightly, at a charge of 1½d. for half an ounce, and similarly wonderful services to many other parts of the world.
If I may refer to something which was not in his speech, but which is connected with his speech, it also gave me pleasure to hear the question and answer exchanged earlier this afternoon between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the Prime Minister. It seemed to us to be of good augury—one cannot say more than that, I suppose—that there should be some possibility of guarding against air attack by some other means than offence. If money is needed for carrying on the experimental work, or afterwards, if that experimental work proves to be justified and steps have to be taken for improving defences of that Kind in this country, we here at any rate shall be very willing to do our best in helping to provide it.
It must be clear to the House that in the air, more definitely than on land or water, armaments, and therefore Estimates, depend upon policy. A country with our Imperial responsibilites must clearly have a small but very highly equipped and efficient Army. It must have a Navy equal at least to that of other Powers. But the strength that it really needs in the air is at any rate
more arguable, and I want to show to the House, if I can, how we have arrived at the present position, and therefore the present Estimates, and what the policy at which we have arrived really entails. In order to get a background for that, I venture to make one comment on the position taken up by the Under-Secretary this afternoon, and by other Ministers representing Service Departments, who have told us one after another that in past years we alone have cut our expenditure to the bone, and that we must now increase because no one else has followed our example.
I have been meeting friends of several countries recently, and have mentioned that point to them with complete confidence, but I have found that they do not hold that view, and the sort of figures which seem to be present in their minds, and which I think we ought to have present in our minds, are these: They are very simple. If one compares the last pre-War year, 1913–14, with the latest year for which figures are published, namely, 1933–34–20 years later-one finds that, while the countries which were beaten in the Great War show heavy reductions, all the victorious Powers in that War show very large increases. Japan, in 1934, spent more than three times her pre-War figure. But the interesting point, of which other people seem to be aware, though it was news to me until I came to verify it, is that the other four great Powers seem to have been following very much a parallel line. Italian expenditure was up by a little over 50 per cent., that of the United States was just a little under, and ours and France's was almost exactly on the 50 per cent. increase mark. I know there was a real reduction in the Air after the War; we all know that; but the general idea that we alone have cut to the bone is one that it is not easy to get other people to believe with the intensity with which we believe it ourselves.
With that in mind, I would ask the House to note just four points in this connection. When we look through the record of that greatest of all tragedies in international relationships, the Disarmament Conference, we find that other countries have never been quite so ready to take our view as to air policy as we
have always seemed to expect. My four points are these: In the first place, it was notable, and in my view deplorable, that in the early days of the Conference, when it would have been much easier to obtain agreement than it became later, we were never in favour of the abolition of military aircraft. We concentrated our effort on getting other people to reduce to our level, and so, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) has pointed out, we played direct into Herr Hitler's hands.
Secondly, when we became willing to abolish military aircraft, our proposals were handicapped by our reservation in favour of bombing in outlying districts for police purposes, in which we were backed only by Iraq, Persia and Siam, though one would think that Powers like France and Italy would also have difficult hinterlands behind their colonial possessions in which they might want to make use of that arm. Although we offered later to withdraw that reservation, there was a deplorable delay of 10 months between our stating it and our stating that we would be willing to withdraw it, and the withdrawal came too late.
Thirdly, when the Conference got down to the question which the Foreign Secretary so rightly said was vital, namely, the internationalisation or effective supervision of civilian aircraft, surely, on the assumption that we really wanted to do anything, we made a grave error of tactics, if nothing worse, by merely putting all the objections to action without any sort of suggestion as to how any of them could be met. Fourthly, after concurring, at the beginning of June last year, in the Air Committee being called upon by the Disarmament Conference to resume its work and to examine projects which had been put forward by different countries, before the end of that same month we threw in our hand and said that we had abandoned the hope of any effective convention, and must increase our air strength.
Turning our minds back for a moment to that month, there had been, as we remember, a very skilful, assiduous and powerful campaign among those interested in air armaments, but I do not think we have ever been told what else happened between the time when this country concurred in the matter being referred for further examination to the Air Committee and when, only three or
four weeks later, we said that no further investigation would really be useful, and we must increase our strength. The epitaph that I fear will be written on all that, when our policy in the Disarmament Conference comes to be finally reviewed, will be the simple words "Too late."
I doubt, however, whether last summer—and here I am following the line of thought suggested by the hon. Member for Gower—it was really too late to make a real examination of the possibility of effective regulation of civil aviation, which would have opened up again the question of the abolition or limitation of military aircraft. At any rate, the Disarmament Conference did not think so, and, as I have suggested, we have never had an explanation why our Government did. After all, one has to remember that it is only in the air that great Powers are really afraid of one another, and fear leads to two things. It leads to a great piling up of armaments when there is no longer any hope of any agreement for reduction; but it also leads to a great willingness to reduce or control, or even abolish, as long as there is any chance of effective agreement. As one reads the story leading up to the present position, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that time after time Germany and France might have been brought together if only we had been rather less hesitant, more anxious to seek out solutions than difficulties, and more willing to take a slight risk in order to obtain a great gain.
The question must be in the minds of all of us now whether there will be another chance in the coming weeks. Let us pray that there may be that chance, and that it may not again be lost. But, meanwhile, we are faced with our present position. I am not one of those, if there be any, who hold that, because no defence can prevent an enemy from getting home with his air attacks, we should therefore have no defence. That would mean that, if we ever came to be attacked, the enemy could do quietly and at leisure, probably in broad daylight, what otherwise, even if he succeeded in doing it, he would have to do on the tip and run principle, probably at night, at considerable risk to himself. If these Estimates stood by
themselves and were not the beginning of a startling new policy my feelings and those of my colleagues here would be very different towards them. But the authoritative statement on this matter that we are bound to have in mind when we are discussing the Air Estimates and Air policy, and which will govern future Estimates, is that of the Lord President that this Government will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer be in a position inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores.
What is going to happen? We on these benches are sometimes told that we are not realists in this matter. I believe that that is unjustified. I should like to consider between which two great countries is war most likely—I know that matters change like a kaleidescope—in the next five years. We have our attention unpleasantly concentrated just now on Germany and France, but I do not think that really the danger is there, but that it is more likely to spring up between Russia and Japan. Japan has a great aircraft programme, and Russia is becoming intensely air-minded and will be building, of course against Japan on the one side and against Germany on the other, and will want to feel that she will be at such strength, if she becomes involved in a war in the East, as to be free from the risk of attack from the West, for which the sudden change of policy of Germany towards Poland opened up a prospect at the beginning of last year. Germany is afraid of Russia as well as Russia being afraid of Germany, and Germany, surely, will build largely in the air, air Locarno or no air Locarno, against Russia on the one side, and against France on the other. France is not afraid of Germany on land, and one expects that she hardly will feel so on sea, but she is afraid, as all countries must be afraid, of this terrible air weapon. France also will be adding to her already large forces, and probably Italy, with already large forces, will be doing the same.
The new doctrine is that we must set ourselves to have an air force as big as that of any of those Powers which may be within striking distance of us. My point is that whereas all our neighbours, inevitably if we look at it from the practical point of view, will be building against attack from two sides, we, upon
whom a two-sided attack is an impossibility as long as we preserve our pacific attitude, which we do preserve, towards all the nations of the world, and indeed under the proposed Pact, which I for one hope will come off, even a one-sided attack without calling in other Powers to our help, in spite of being in such an essentially different position from our neighbours, have to have as big an air force as the biggest of them. That is an appalling doctrine, and I really do not think that either the House or the country have realised where that doctrine will lead us. It is not only appalling from the point of view of thinking of Europe heavily armed, but, from the point of view of our country particularly, a sheer financial impossibility.
What ought our Army to cost us in the opinion of those who believe, as the House in general believes, that it ought to cost more if we are to accept the statement of the Minister who put the case before us yesterday that the Estimates of this year were only an instalment and that there would be subsequent increases. There is a large programme of barracks building, more warlike stores to be provided, and all this increased specialisation and mechanisation, and the Army Estimates are now £43,500,000. Will £50,000,000 be found to be a satisfactory resting place? Then there is the Navy. When we begin replacing battleships at £8,000,000 a time, and when we embark upon that absolute programme of cruisers which we are told we must keep up even if there is nothing on the broad seas more dangerous than a jellyfish to attack them—our Estimates now are £60,000,000 with practically no rebuilding and without the rebuilding which the friends of the Navy, in order to maintain our traditional strength on the sea, have in mind—will the amount stop short of the figure of £80,000,000 a year? No one who really thinks in terms of what lies before us can think so. With the Government's policy in front of us and the certainty—and if there is one thing certain it is this—that great Continental Powers will more and more put all their available strength into the air, can we have any reasonable doubt that, if we are to carry out the definite policy laid down for us of being equal in strength to any other Power, our present Estimates of
£20,000,000 will be likely to go up to £40,000,000 or £60,000,000. If we really are to maintain that tremendous position, I wonder whether £60,000,000 will do it? I doubt it.
The point I would like to put to the House is that altogether, with say, £50,000,000 for the Army, £80,000,000 for the Navy and £60,000,000 for the Air Force you get a total of £190,000,000 of expenditure on the Services, and when we contemplate that sort of thing—and I think that we have got to do so—I would ask: Who are the realists? Those on this side of the House who realise that it will not be possible to ask the country to bear that sort of armament burden, and it will be far heavier than will fall on any other country, and therefore genuinely seek for some alternative, or those, on the other hand, who are prepared to drift on and on and up and up asking always for higher Estimates all round, reaching a position that will become impossible? I am certain that no one thinks that I am exaggerating the possibilities of the new policy if we are to act, as the Government presumably intend, on this plan.
Continental countries are becoming very rapidly air conscious or air-minded, and they have air pride, air emotions, and, more potent than all, they have air fears, of the possibility of being paralysed by a sudden attack from one side while engaged in a war on the other, with their nerve centres annihilated before anything can be done. That will always be the danger present to their minds, and they will build accordingly. Why should we do the same? Does pool security really mean that we have to do that This is a question which will some day have to come before the electorate, and I shall be interested to know their answer. I am only going to deal with one other aspect of the matter. We find in the Estimates that there are 2,300 flying officers and 23,000 flying non-commissioned officers and men, a total of 25,000. These men are always willing to risk their lives and often are risking their lives day after day in a very difficult element, and surely they are the most gallant forces in the world. The attraction of danger and adventure is such to men of our race that I am sure that if our Air Force had to be doubled or trebled there never would be any lack
of recruits. But with the best of machines and the best of precautions there are accidents like that of yesterday. I am sure that no one has ever shirked or will shirk the risk because of the chance of accident. I suppose that there will always be a higher peace death roll in the Air Service than in any other possible profession or employment, and what the position is likely to be in war we all of us know. I ask the House to pause once, twice and three times before, by accepting these Estimates, they commit themselves to the declared policy of the Government, and, before they contemplate an appalling scale of expansion and expenditure which with that policy most certainly lies before us, to think of the gallant lives which that policy will be risking. We on these benches, cannot, with this opinion in mind, support the Motion now before the House.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to join with the other speakers in complimenting the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary upon his lucid compendious, comprehensive and engaging survey of the many activities of his Department during the present year. The Under-Secretary always gives a very good account of the work of the Royal Air Force, and he is in the best position to do so because he has had long experience, and has intimate connection with so many of its activities. We are fortunate to have in this House a representative who takes such a great interest in his duties and is able to speak to us so agreeably about them. However, there are a certain number of aspects of this question on which the Under-Secretary can only speak as he is instructed. Nothing was more notable in his able review than what he left out. After all, we are deeply exercised in our minds about the relative strength of the British and German air forces, and over that vital and crucial part of our discussion, the most anxious and important part of the whole question connected with the air, my right hon. Friend drew, or was inclined to draw, a veil of impenetrable opacity.
My remarks, which, I am afraid, are going to be extremely dry—and I shall endeavour to make them as brief as possible—are to be in the form of a supplement to the speech we have heard, and
will, I think, supply a basis for discussion on this the greatest of all matters which now are before us. It is a very complicated subject. In the comparisons of air strength we suffer very much because there is no accurate knowledge and definite terminology by which it can be compared. At any rate, we have one advantage, that happily this difficult matter is not complicated by any differences between those who support His Majesty's Government and the Government themselves as to the objective or the standard towards which we should work, because, as the right hon. Member opposite has reminded us, the Lord President of the Council in March, 1934, laid down, in the most plain and most solemn manner his view, with definiteness and soberness, of what our air power standard should be. I must read what he said from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
In conclusion, I say that if all our efforts fail, and if it is not possible to obtain this equality in such matters as I have indicated"—
He was referring to the negotiations—
then any Government of this country—a National Government more than any—and this Government will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer be in a position inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1934; col. 2078, Vol. 286.]
Therefore, those of us who accept that statement have no need to go into all the questions of alliances, or the difficult aspects of foreign policy, or questions of international morality and pacifism which have played, and ought to play, a part in these various debates. We have a perfectly definite objective proclaimed by the highest authority on a most serious occasion, and I take that as the starting point of the argument that I wish to put before the House. That was in March last. In November of last year, supported by some friends of mine, I moved an Amendment to the Address representing that:
In the present circumstances of the world, the strength of our national defences, and especially of our air defences, is no longer adequate to secure the peace, safety and freedom of your Majesty's faithful subjects.
I do not think that the course of events has in any way stultified those who put down that Amendment. I must apologise for quoting what I said in that Debate,
but it is necessary to my arguments to-day. I said:
I therefore assert, first, that Germany already, at this moment, has a military air force. That is to say, military squadrons, with the necessary ground services, with the necessary reserves of trained personnel, and material—which only await an order to assemble and in full open combination—and that this illegal air force is rapidly approaching equality with our own."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1934; col. 866, Vol 295.]
That was my first statement. I also made certain statements as to the relative strength of Germany and this country, which will appear in the course of my remarks to-day. In reply to the statement which I thought it my duty to make, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council made a momentous announcement, and confirmed the fact that Germany was forming, or had formed, a military air force. Hitherto, the official view had been that Germany was observing the Treaty which precluded her from having a military air force. But, as a result of that Debate in November, the statement of the Lord President of the Council to which I have referred was made. Subsequent events have shown how true it was. In reply to the further statement which I made, my right hon. Friend uttered very definite contradictions, and it is with those contradictions that I wish to deal. He said:
It is not the case that Germany is rapidly approaching equality with us. … Her Teal strength is not 50 per cent. of our strength in Europe to-day.
That is to say, half our strength in Europe. That directly contradicted the assertion which I had made. My right hon. Friend further proceeded to say:
As for the position this time next year"—
That would be November, 1935—
.… so far from the German military air force being at least as strong, and probably stronger, than our own, we estimate that we shall still have in Europe alone a margin of nearly 50 per cent. I cannot look further forward than the next two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1934; col. 882, Vol. 295.]
Does my right hon. Friend adhere to that statement to-day? I wonder whether he will tell us when he speaks whether further information has led him to modify those very striking statements. Certainly, if they are true they are
enormously reassuring. If, by any chance, my right hon. Friend has been misled into making an under-statement or an erroneous statement, I am sure that he would wish to correct it at the first opportunity. At any rate, I propose to examine and analyse those two statements. But before I do so I must say a word on the question of terminology. My right hon. Friend the Lord President warned us on that same 28th November of the danger of making false comparisons. He said:
The total number of service aircraft which any country possesses is an entirely different thing from the total number of aircraft of first-line strength. The total number, of course, includes the first-line strength and all the reserve machines used in practice and many things of that kind. I would like the House to remember that one may get a wholly erroneous picture in making comparisons, just to mention the aircraft of our own country, when perhaps the figures that have been mentioned are but the figures of first-line strength.
That is perfectly true, and we are indebted to my right hon. Friend for establishing, as it were, these definite categories, so that we can carry on something like intelligent discussion upon air matters. Military aircraft and first-line strength are in two categories. I think I am fully expressing what my right hon. Friend meant, but while stating this principle my right hon. Friend immediately seemed to depart from it, because the figures which he gave for Germany were of military aircraft, whereas the figures he gave for Great Britain were the figures of first-line air strength. My right hon. Friend said, in short, that we ought not to compare military aircraft with first-line air strength, and yet in giving this comparison he proceeded to do so. I wish, therefore, this afternoon to examine the air power of Great Britain and Germany in both categories—that of military aircraft and first-line strength. I will deal with the position last November, when we had the Debate, because those figures which had been made public were all that we had to go upon. They dealt with the situation as it was last November. In dealing with the German position the Lord President said:
The figures—
That is, the German figures—
we have range from a figure, given on excellent authority and from a source of indisputable authority, of 600 aircraft—600 military aircraft altogether—to the highest figure that we have been given, also from good sources, of something not over 1,000.
The probability is that the actual figure ranges between those two, near which limit I cannot say; but it is interesting to note that in the French Chamber the French Government—and I do not think their tendency would be to minimise figures—gave the figure of the military aircraft at 1,100.
I believe it will be found that my right hon. Friend, or those who advised him, mixed up the two classes, that we were asked to keep separate in our minds. Instead of saying that Germany had 600 military aircraft, he should have said that Germany had 600 first-line air strength. The figure of 1,100 which was used in the French Chamber represented, I suppose, military aircraft comprising and supporting the first-line strength, first-line strength being aeroplanes with reserves of different strengths behind them, with pilots, mechanics and establishments all as part of the air force, with its squadrons. Military aircraft represent merely the machines. The figures of 1,100 used in the French Chamber, it seems to me, are the very lowest figures that could possibly be quoted. It is more than possible that the position was very much more serious in November. However, taking the basis of those figures for comparison, let us see what are the comparable figures given by my right hon. Friend for Great Britain. The Lord President said:
The first-line strength of the regular units of the Royal Air Force to-day, at home and overseas, is 880 aircraft. Of these, including those of the Fleet Air Arm, 560 are at present stationed in the United Kingdom. There are also at home the Auxiliary Air Force and the Special Reserve squadrons, with an establishment of 127 aircraft,"—
To-day that figure has been quoted as 130 by the Under-Secretary—
making a total of just under 690 aircraft available to-day in the United Kingdom that could be put into the first line. But the House must realise that behind our regular first line strength of 880 aircraft"—
My right hon. Friend seems to have assumed the total figure for the British Empire in dealing with home defence—
there is a far larger number either held in reserve to replace the normal peace time wastage or in current use in training and experimental work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1934; cols. 875–7, Vol. 295.]
I must draw the attention of the House to certain points or defects in that statement. My right hon. Friend says that 560 first-line air strength aircraft were avail-
able for the defence of the United Kingdom, and in order to make those figures look larger 127 auxiliary aircraft were added to produce a total of 687. Those auxiliary aircraft are not fairly comparable to the whole-time regular units of the Royal Air Force. There is the same kind of gap between them and the Royal Air Force as there is between the Territorial Army and the whole-time professional Army. I thought it a little disquieting that those 127 auxiliary aircraft, now called 130, should be included and represented as first-line air strength, with all their reserves behind them, as if they were equal to the finest units of the Royal Air Force or, to make the comparison with the Army, as if a Territorial battalion were equal to the finest battalion of the Guards. I cannot think that they should have been properly included in the same category.
The actual facts are perfectly well known abroad. If those 127 auxiliary aircraft are to be added to the British first line strength, then at least 300 fast commercial dual-purpose bombing machines which exist in Germany, ready and available for immediate conversion, will have to be added on the other side, which would alter the count even more to our disadvantage. It is much safer to take the basis of the 660 mentioned by the Lord President as the British basis for the defence of the United Kingdom, including the Royal Naval Air Arm. Therefore, the comparable basis that I can conceive, from a study of all that has been said, is that in November the strength of the German first-line air strength was 600 and the British home defence, including the Naval Air Arm, was 560.
Now I come to military aircraft. The 1,100 military aircraft, or the 1,000 mentioned as an alternative, no doubt include 300 fast dual-purpose bombing machines. What is the comparable British figure? The Lord President of the Council did not mention it; he left it veiled in a re-serve. We have had no official figure until this afternoon, but the Paris correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," Colonel Turner, who seems to be singularly well informed, and who has made several statements on the subject, the latest of which appeared in yesterday's "Daily Telegraph," says that Britain's air strength is 1,020 first-line aeroplanes,
not including training machines. I was going to rest on that figure until the speech of the Under-Secretary this afternoon, who has now confirmed it. He has told the House that the military machines at the present time consist of 890, plus 130 of the auxiliary forces, which makes exactly 1,020. Therefore, the figure which the Lord President of the Council did not give us in November, but which has now been published in the "Daily Telegraph," has been confirmed by the Under-Secretary for Air. On this basis a comparison between the British and German air forces at the end of November would appear to have been as follows: First-line strength, Great Britain 560, Germany 600; military aircraft, Great Britain 1,020, without training machines, and Germany 1,100. Beyond all question these are much the most favourable figures from our point of view which could possibly be cited, and I am sure that they will fall far short of the truth. But even taking them as they are, they altogether disprove the first assertion of the Lord President of the Council on 28th November, because they show the two countries virtually on an equality, neck and neck, whereas the Lord President said:
It is not the case that Germany is rapidly approaching equality with us. Her real strength is not 50 per cent. of our strength in Europe to-day.
These figures, therefore, require further elucidation from the Government in view of what I have said.
I come to the second and more disquieting stage of my argument. Since our Debate in November four months have passed, and during that period our position has sensibly changed for the worse. On 1st April, that is in 13 days' time, the German Government have announced, formally and publicly that it is their intention to constitute a military air force. They are going to assume all those elements which have hitherto been altogether inferior and unofficial in the strong units of the German regular air force. It involves no great change. It only means officers putting on their badges of rank which have hitherto been tacitly understood. We do not know what proportion of the vast pool of their military, commercial and sporting aviation Germany will declare as their first-line air strength, hut I have no doubt
that the very lowest figure they will declare is the lowest figure at which their strength exists, that is 600 first-line air strength, and it may easily be doubled, and more than doubled. I must point out that I have been using only the minimum figures, and although they are minimum figures they are amply sufficient to prove the case. I do not wish to use alarmist figures unless they are forced upon one by the fact that one cannot close one's eyes to them. But I take no responsibility—and I wish to make this quite clear in case there is any inquest afterwards into all these statements—that I am giving even as a private Member any assurce that the actual truth may not be much worse than the figures I have cited.
Last November in the same Debate the Lord President of the Council gave the figures of the German army which has been formed contrary to the Treaty, as 300,000 men in 21 divisions. Only four months after Germany declared, on Saturday last, when we know that there are 500,000 in barracks, for compulsory universal service to sustain 36 divisions. The 21 has grown to 36. It may be, indeed it is, only natural to assume that the expansion of the German air force will bear the same proportion to the new German army as the air forces of other conscript countries bear to the armies of other countries; it will undergo the same expansion; and it may be that an even more unpleasant surprise awaits His Majesty's Government on 1st April than occurred when the German army scheme was declared on Saturday last. But what will be the relative position a year from now, that is, at the end of the next financial year? We are to add during the year 11 squadrons of nine machines each—let us say 100 machines to our first-line air strength. Eleven new squadrons will come into being with all their appurtenances and reserves. The Under-Secretary said, evidently with great pleasure, that the Air Ministry were ordering over 1,000 new machines. We want to know how many new machines are being delivered. The machines may be ordered so late in the year as not really to be anything but paper decisions; and we must deal with realities in this matter. When I looked at Vote 3 I found that only £1,000,000 more was being taken for this part of the construction vote, that is, £6,800,000 instead of
£5,800,000, and I do not see how the addition of £1,000,000 can possibly make such a very large addition to our Air Force. Nor does it in fact, because the Under-Secretary, with complete candour, has shown exactly the amount of the advance in British military aircraft during the year, and has told us that we now possess 1,020, and that at the end of the year we shall have 1,170, that is an increase of 150 machines.

Sir P. SASSOON: First-line.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But that is not an increase of 150 in the first-line air strength, because the squadrons are not in existence. It simply means that 150 additional machines of the newest pat-torn will be added to our Air Force. What we are comparing in this matter is not air strength with air strength, but the best class of hew machines with the comparable production in Germany. I hope no one will mix up the comparisons, because that is absolutely destructive of obtaining a coherent result. We now know that the financial provisions only permit of an addition of 150 machines of this type and the addition of 11 squadrons, which will raise our first-line air strength for home defence to 659 and our military aircraft to 1,170, exclusive of training machines. I hope that these figures will be found to be right, but it would be of enormous help if we could get a proper basis upon which to argue these vital matters. However, I do not think there is any dispute about the two figures of 659 and 1,170. What, then, will be the German first-line air strength at the end of this year? We cannot tell. We shall learn officially on 1st April, and it is no use speculating on what they will declare as their first-line air strength. I must confine myself to German military aircraft, the other factor.
Here, again, mystery shrouds all German preparations. At various points facts emerge which enable a general view to be taken. Enormous sums of money are being spent on German aviation and upon other armaments. I wish we could get at the figures which are being spent upon armaments. I believe that they would stagger us with the terrible, tale they would tell of the immense panoply which that nation of nearly 70,000,000 of people is assuming, or has already largely assumed. But there are certain things which strike one. For instance, the popu-
lation of Dessau increased during last year by 13,000 people. Dessau is a centre of the great Junkers' aeroplane works, but it is only one of four or five main air factories of Germany. There are at least 20 others of a secondary but important character; and 13,000 people are known to have entered the town of Dessau—I do not say that they are all workers—in the course of last year. One can see what the scale of production must be. Further, owing to the fact that the Germans had to prepare their air force in secret and unofficially, there has grown up a somewhat different method of producing aircraft from that which obtains in this country and in France. Much smaller elements are actually made in the main factories than are made over here. Nuts and bolts and small parts are spread over an enormous producing area of small firms, and then they flow into the great central factories. The work which is done there consists in a rapid assembly, like a jig-saw puzzle or meccano game, with the result that aeroplanes are turned out with a rapidity which is incomparably greater than in our factories, where a great deal of the finer stages of the work are done on the spot.
I must assemble these facts because they are very important. According to yesterday's "Daily Telegraph," in this same account which I thought was so Very well informed, between 250 and 300 military aircraft have been added to Germany's total since November. I fear it will be found that the German factories are working up from their present rate of output of more than 100 a month to some unknown monthly increase. It may be 100, 120, or 140 a month; I do not pretend to be able to say. Nothing I have gathered from the newspapers enables me to say what the ultimate result will be, but it seems to me that if you take the next 12 months at an average output of 125 machines a month—I am sure there are a great many people who will scoff at such a low figure, and I may be only making myself ridiculous by using such a figure and may afterwards be mocked at for doing so—even if you take that moderate figure of 125, it will mean an addition to Germany's military aircraft in the financial year 1935–36 of 1,500, of which a portion will go to replace wastage, and the rest will be a net addition to their total military aircraft strength.
That is many times larger than any programme of deliveries provided in this Estimate, which we see is concerned with an increase of 150, plus the natural wear and tear and wastage. Therefore, I am unable to accept the second statement of my right hon. Friend the Lord President in November last, which I have read to the House and will read again:
As for the position this time next year, so far from the German military air force being almost as strong as and probably stronger than our own, I estimate that we shall have in Europe alone a margin of nearly 50 per cent.
On the contrary, I must submit to the House that the Lord President was misled in the figures which he gave last November, quite unwittingly perhaps, because of the great difficulty of the subject. At any rate, the true position at the end of this year will be almost the reverse of that which he stated to Parliament. We must remember also that Germany's scale of reserves, judging by the lectures which are being delivered at different times by those who have been presiding over German aviation development—the scale of reserves of first-line air strength is 200 per cent. The reason is this: It will take them three months to get their peace-time industry working at full blast on a war-time basis and they calculate on a loss of 100 per cent. of aeroplanes per month, that is damage to 100 per cent. per month in time of war. Thus they would have three months' supply at the end of that three-monthly period. They hope to transfer the whole of the civilian industry into the means of getting their air force into permanent being on a wastage of 100 per cent. a month. They have, of course, made preparations for converting the entire industry of Germany to war purposes by a simple order being given of a detail and refinement which is almost inconceivable. I am not particularly stressing at this moment what comparable measures have been taken, but I am certain that Germany's preparations are infinitely more far-reaching. So that you have not only equality at the moment, but the great output which I have described, and you have behind that this enormous power to turn over, on the outbreak of war, the whole great force of the German industry.
I must again remind the House that when the War came to an end as
Minister of Munitions I was presiding over an output of over 24,000 aeroplanes in a year, and our plans for the next year went to over 40,000, for a campaign that was never fought. It must be recognised how terribly large these figures are. Although they sound astronomical, they are not entirely removed from probability. I do not wish to complicate this argument on figures which it is difficult to make clear by qualitative analysis of the conditions in the two countries, but I must say this: It is admitted at the present time that the only effective means of defence against air attack is retaliation and counter-attack, and from the point of view of counter-attack the Germans seem to have a great advantage over us. Although they declare that their force is purely defensive, it has a much larger percentage of long-distance bombing machines than any other force—far larger than we have ourselves.
The next point is a matter of geography. The frontiers of Germany are very much nearer to London than the sea coasts of this island are to Berlin, and whereas practically the whole of the German bombing air force can reach London with an effective load, very few, if any, of our aeroplanes can reach Berlin with any appreciable load of bombs. That must be considered as part of the factors in judging between the two countries. We only wish to live quietly and to be left alone. If it is thought that a measure of retaliation, the power to retaliate, is a deterrent—I believe it is—to an outrageous attack, then it seems that we are at a disadvantage in that respect, quite apart from any numerical disadvantage. I was very glad indeed that the Prime Minister to-day, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), spoke about the committee which is to examine defensive measures against aeroplane attacks. That is a matter in which all countries, in my opinion, have a similar interest—all peaceful countries. It is a question not of one country against another, but of the ground against the air, and unless the dwellers upon earth can manage to secure the air above their heads it is almost impossible to forecast the misfortunes and fears which this invention, of which the world
has proved itself so utterly unworthy, may bring upon them.
But in regard to this question of counter-attack and retaliation, which we hope to use here as a deterrent to keep us safe, one of the factors is the preparation made by the civilian population on either side to guard themselves against an air raid. Obviously if one side has made good preparations the loss inflicted upon it will be very much less than that inflicted on the side which has made no preparation at all. Great panics may arise if this is not foreseen. Up to the present what has been done on the Continent is incomparably ahead of anything that has been even presented on paper publicly here. In November last I threw out the suggestion that unemployed labour should be recruited to "earth in" our aerodromes. Foreign aerodromes, German aerodromes, are all tucked under the ground. Such a task might well be undertaken here. It would relieve the congestion of the labour market and at the same time put vital plant, without which you have no means of defence, in a state of security not dissimilar from that which other countries think it necessary to employ. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say whether anything has been done about that. It takes a frightfully long time to get anything done in this country. We move like a slow-motion picture in all these matters. Four months is a tremendous period, and there is not the slightest reason why 20,000 men should not have been at work doing that which cannot menace anyone in the world, and which would give us security.
I therefore say, on a general survey, that I do not think my right hon. Friend's solemn pledge, that we are not inferior to any country within striking distance, is being kept, or that it will be kept, because the efforts which are being made will not be made by this country alone. The great advance of German aviation is only now beginning to take its full force. The programme which was announced in this country in August last was hopelessly inadequate. Its leisurely, stinted execution has so far made no appreciable addition to our strength. I do not think there would have been a Supplementary Estimate for the Air Force but for the Amendment to the Address which my Noble Friend and
others put upon the Paper. It was only announced after that Amendment had appeared. The provision for this year is equally inadequate, hopelessly inadequate. I know with what satisfaction the Under-Secretary would announce the double or the treble of these proposals, but I have to deal with the facts presented to us. We are told that we are expanding as fast as we can, but that the preparations have to be made, that aerodromes have to be bought, the training schools enlarged, and that all this takes time. There are many arguments which the Government can use to show how slow and difficult the work is. I do not accept those arguments at their face value.
I am sure that if the vigorous measures that the situation requires were adopted to put ourselves in a position of defensive security, very much more rapid progress could be made in every branch. But even if the argument were true and there is to be this great delay, if we can only proceed by such very gradual stages, then I say that the responsibility of the Government and of the Air Ministry will be all the greater. If the necessary preparations had been made two years ago when the danger was clear and apparent, the last year would have seen a substantial advance, and this year would have seen a very great advance. Even at this time last year, if a resolve had been taken, as I urged, to double and redouble the British Air Force as soon as possible—the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) described me as a Malay run amok because I made such a statement—very much better results would have been yielded in 1935, and we should not find ourselves in our present extremely dangerous position.
Everyone sees now that we have entered a period of the gravest peril. We are faced, not with the prospect of a new war, but with something very like the possibility of a resumption of the War which ended in November, 1918. I still hope, and I believe—the alternative would be despair—that it may be averted. But the position is far worse than it was in 1914, and it may well be found to be uncontrollable. We are no longer safe behind the shield of our Navy. We have fallen behind in the vital air defence of this island. We are not only far more deeply and explicitly involved in Con-
tinental affairs than we were in 1914, but owing to the neglect of our own defences we have become dependent upon other countries for our essential security.
From being the least vulnerable of all nations we have, through developments in the air, become the most vulnerable, and yet, even now, we are not taking the measures which would be in true proportion to our needs. The Government have proposed these increases. They must face the storm. They will have to encounter every form of unfair attack. Their motives will be misrepresented. They will be calumniated and called warmongers. Every kind of attack will be made upon them by many vocal forces, powerful and numerous forces, in this country. They are going to get it anyway. Why, then, not fight for something that will give us safety? Why, then, not insist that the provision for the Air Force should be adequate and, then, however, much may be the censure and however strident the abuse which we have to face, at any rate there will be this satisfactory result, that His Majesty's Government will be able to feel that in this, of all matters the prime responsibility of a Government, they have done their duty.

6.32 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: It is an invidious task for a back bencher to have to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but on this occasion I can do so, in one respect, with the greatest pleasure. That is in his commencing remarks—which, I believe, will find accord in all parts of the House—congratulating my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his masterly review of the activities of the Royal Air Force. But I, personally, was bitterly disappointed in one respect by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. Those of us who heard did not find, and those citizens of this country who read it to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will not find in that speech one single word as regards the hope of peace coming to this country by any other means than a race in armaments. I feel that those of us who share with him the desire for security, who are supporting the policy of His Majesty's Government in expanding our defence forces, and who will share the
political abuse which he says is going to descend upon our heads, have equally a right to receive from him liberty for a point of view. That is the point of view which involves the hope that, while reaching security for ourselves by ceasing unilateral disarmament and expanding our defences, nevertheless eventually we shall achieve world security in a greater sense by some form of world limitation of armaments.
The right hon. Gentleman built up a case as regards the German figures. He himself said, however, that it was no good speculating on what 1st April would reveal as regards military aircraft in Germany. I agree. The right hon. Gentleman built up a case which may or may not be exact and I would say that it is idle to draw any comparisons between our first-line air strength and the first-line air strength of Germany, until the very figures which the right hon. Gentleman awaits are revealed. He built up an argument on premises which he then proceeded to knock down by saying that he was not sure of them. I suggest that we should not draw any conclusions as to the first-line strength of Germany until the figures are revealed by the German Government. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was ample justification of the Government's policy of trying by all possible means to get Germany back among the nations who are willing to try to reach agreement by international means. One may say that it is impossible to trust in the word of Germany, but it is better to make an attempt at reaching some understanding than to face what is inevitable in our expansion programme, in the field of air defence, unless we do reach some sort of agreement.
I think on all sides it will be agreed that these Estimates are within the ambit of the Government's policy of fair expansion and are in accordance with the undertakings given last year by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping gave some figures which I could not follow but which I shall read with interest in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he seemed to think that the present programme did not implement the undertaking given by the Lord President of the Council. He also said that surely a great national effort in this national emergency, ought to be able to produce
a larger degree of expansion during the coming financial year. We have to realise, however, that it is in the period of construction, of putting up bricks and mortar, of training personnel, of growing grass on the fields that the foundations are laid on which we are going to expand, and that the provision of the aeroplanes themselves, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, present probably the least difficult of all the points which have to be covered in our expansion programme. But I share with him his misgivings that in any substantial programme of aeroplane construction, unless we are very careful, some of the new aeroplanes are going to be obsolete before they are delivered.
I was glad to hear the announcement of the Under-Secretary that reorganisation by the Air Ministry was going to allow of the quicker production of new types of machines. The House ought to realise that at present it can take seven years from the first inception of the specifications for a new flying boat, to the general equipment of one squadron with those flying boats. Anyone who has studied the advance in technical aircraft will realise that if this process is to occupy seven years, an aeroplane is bound to be two or three years out of date by the time of its delivery. As regards night bombers, at the present time we have types dating from 1930 back to 1923 in service and they look like being in service for a considerable number of years. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that re-equipment with night bombers is going to be speeded up and that there will be no waiting for new specifications which, will inevitably delay the delivery of the machines.
I want to devote a few remarks to the position which is likely to exist when the extension programme has come to an end. According to the figures of the Lord President of the Council we shall then have 1,330 regular first-line aircraft, that is in regular squadrons, apart from auxiliaries, and the question arises whether, when that period comes, we shall not be relatively as far behind other European countries as we are to-day. That question arises for two reasons. First, I believe that other neighbouring countries will in the meantime have adopted a policy of trying to build up to the strength of their nearest neighbour. The right hon. Gentleman told us that
Russia had now 2,500 first-line aircraft, and in three years time they may well have 4,000. If we base our policy on parity with any force within striking distance, we have to remember also that as aircraft science develops the range will increase and those countries which to-day we need not consider as being within our range, will be within our range by the time this programme has finished, and therefore will have to be reckoned as within the ambit of the Government's policy. Moscow is not at present within range. We need not reckon the Russian air force air a striking force within reach of our shores. But in three years time it may be within striking distance of us. If our policy is based on parity with the first-line strength of any force within striking distance of us we may have to reckon on parity with a neighbouring force of not less than 4,000 aircraft.
If that situation arises, what is our position to be? I hope the Government will indicate that if that situation arises we are not going to be left behind and that we shall face that issue if necessary. I believe that some declaration of our willingness to face the fact that the policy of parity with the nearest neighbour may include European countries which at present are not within range, would be a political deterrent of the first order. I believe that the difficulty in the way of the success, by itself, of the policy of parity with the nearest neighbour, is caused by the fear which is in every nation's mind. If first-class Powers are going to make this parity the basis of their policies, I ask the House to consider that such a policy on the part of each Power postulates world parity, because Germany will want parity with us, and we with Germany; Poland will want parity with Germany and Russia with Poland and Germany; Japan will want parity with Russia and the United States parity with Japan—and so on around the whole circumference, and the puppy will soon be biting its own tail.
I believe that the only hope of success for a policy based on parity with one's nearest neighbour, lies in that policy being coupled with some system of collective security by regional pacts such as the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal are shortly to tour Europe in the hope of achieving. But in the air arm we have a new factor. A regional pact is not going to be sufficient. We must
achieve some form of world limitation of first-line aircraft, not excluding Japan and the United States. The world is too small, the projected ranges are too long to allow of a European security pact alone being an effective instrument. Unless it is coupled with an agreement for limitation by the leading industrial nations or with a separate pact to cover the United States and Japan, a European pact would sooner or later become ineffective and insufficient as an instrument of security. I believe that these proposals are not only necessary but practicable as regards world limitation. As to defence I cannot subscribe to the policy of the Opposition which advocates the immediate abolition of naval and military aircraft. That is no more practical politics than the advocacy by the Leader of the Opposition of the immediate disbandment of the Army and Navy.
By the retention of the military air forces we immediately confine civil aviation to legitimate activity. As long as we have military and naval aircraft, civil aviation ceases to be a menace, as the civil aeroplane always remains vulnerable to the specially designed, high performance fighting machine. The abolition of military aircraft, the internationalisation of civil aviation are easy, pleasant phrases to roll off on a political platform, but I do not think they are practical politics at the present time. The most practical step I suggest would be an Air Convention aiming at limitation, and using the unladen weight of military aircraft as a yardstick. Take two types of aircraft, broadly speaking—one the big bomber, and the other the small fighter and reconnaissance type and lay down a maximum unladen weight for each, and provide that beyond those standards military machines shall not be built. Having got that agreement then endeavour to get the first-class air Powers to agree to a maximum number of machines within each limit.
On three points the structure of our air defence policy will have to stand the test. The first is parity with our nearest neighbour; the second collective security by a European regional pact, and the third world limitation. I believe these three points to be so correlated that, if the Government pursue one without endeavouring to pursue the other two, their
policy will fail. If all three are pursued concurrently, I believe we shall build up a three-point structure which will satisfy the tests of permanency and security. Therefore I would suggest that a world Convention should be called at no far distant date. The Lord President of the Council last year said he would support the proposal for such a world Convention. Let it be a convention of first-class industrial nations away from Geneva. Let the only terms of reference be to agree to limitation. I am conscious of the many obstacles that stand in the way and the many objections that can be raised from all sides of the House and all shades of public opinion, but the difficulties of achievement are not half so great as the terrible fate that awaits us and the whole of civilisation in the future if we do not succeed in attempting something of the sort.

6.46 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I cannot help prefacing the few remarks I wish to address to the House by paying the usual deserved tribute to the Under-Secretary of State. He puts a glamour over a sorry story with a regularity which is almost a danger to the community. I have a feeling that the House of Commons has been somewhat swindled out of a debate on the important question how, having been given a certain amount of money for defence, we can best spend it. The Government very kindly after repeated demands gave us a day to discuss that point because it is out of order to discuss other Services upon one particular Vote, but it was taken by the Opposition as an opportunity for a Vote of Censure on foreign policy and the speech of my right hon. Friend sitting on the other side the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) was practically the only speech which was in order on that Motion. We are again going through a Session without a debate on this important point.
I am still of the opinion that I held a year ago. I do not believe in three Services but in one, and the time has come when we cannot look at these Services under a microscope one after the other. We have to look at the broad features of defence and to see that, if we have £150,000,000, we spend it in the best possible way. No one will accuse me of not being an ardent friend of the air. With some of my friends I rescued the Air
Ministry at a time when it was nearly eaten up by the older Services, and what has emerged is the astonishing development of status that the air and the Air Ministry has now achieved. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) still has in his head the desire to have his own air force in the Navy. I think that such questions are becoming academic. It is not a live question today, although five or six years ago my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for India fought his hardest to stop this sort of attempt. I feel that the victory has been so complete that the Air Ministry has now become proud and overbearing, big and inefficient, and that all our efforts in the past have been concentrated on creating a sort of Frankenstein that we now almost regret.
There are two main functions of the Air Ministry—the (military side and the civil side. My right hon. Friend has tonight painted a picture of alarm which must spread through the country as to the position in which we stand relative to other air forces throughout the world. I want to go a little more into detail as to the actual equipment of our present force. My right hon. Friend said it was a sorry story and how unworthily man had used the great gift of aviation. That is true, but, although we were the eighth or seventh actual Power some time ago, we were equipped with a wonderful air force from the point of view of detail and equipment. There is a lot to be said for something small but tremendously efficient. Let us look at the present position for a moment, at one department, namely, night bombing. It is an unpleasant subject, but for the moment we must forget the unpleasant part of these things and deal with the question whether our night bombers are of the utmost efficiency. There are six squadrons of night bombers, and of these one squadron is still equipped with a machine called "The Virginia." The specification of that machine was issued in 1923. It is practically 12 years old, and when my right hon. Friend talks about first-line aeroplanes, does he realise and understand, and does the House realise, that we are counting as first-line machines in the Air Force machines that were designed 12 years ago? It is a monstrous thing that in the case of war we should put our young men
up in a machine which is junk and nothing else. These night bombers are being replaced by two types of machine called the "Heyford" and the "Hendon." I hope that the last squadron which is not re-equipped will immediately be re-equipped with one of these two types. Even these types are seven years old as the specification came out in 1927.
I want to know really what sort of organisation is there in the Air Ministry that cannot give us to-day something quicker from the time of inception and the issue of specification to the time it arrives in the squadron. Surely eight years is preposterous. These are technical things and I know the House loathes technical questions, but the night bomber is analogous to civil machines. How is it that we do not find incorporated in such machines devices like retractable undercarriages, slots and variable pitched propellers? They are standard equipment on every first-class American commercial machine. I maintain that it is high time that we had an inquiry into the whole organisation of the Air Ministry, because I do not think we are getting our money's worth. The organisation wants going into from top to bottom. We had, inspired by the Secretary of State, a very small inquiry into one side of aviation. It was the Gorell Committee which dealt with private flying. I do not think that even such a body as the Air Ministry could say that we did not bring a breath of fresh air into that subject. It was such a breath of fresh air that there are still officials in the Air Ministry suffering from pneumonia. I go further and suggest that the time has now come when the order of the day should be an inquiry into the Air Ministry itself.
Take the question of the United States. I agree there are geographical considerations which make the United States singular from the point of view of aviation. Possibly the same development will take place there as that which made our mercantile marine and Navy supreme in the world. The internal air lines will develop so wonderfully that such a broad basis of manufacture will occur as to support an air force superior to any in the world. That may be the future, but even to-day they are a long way ahead. America was so upset at
their air organisation that the Government had an inquiry into the whole thing. I have in my hand what every body interested in this subject should read with great attention. It is the report of the Federal Aviation Commission. My right hon. Friend has quoted a bit out of it to-day, but he left out an important paragraph in the middle. There are one or two things that interested me very much in this report. It says:
The claim of world leadership in air transport for the United States seems to be no idle boast. The volume of air passenger traffic under the American flag now exceeds that of all the rest of the world combined.
America was not satisfied with that, however. They had to have an inquiry, and it will be interesting to know what the inquiry recommended. I will tell the House later. The report goes on to say:
American operators have pioneered in the quest for speed, and whereas in the winter of 1934 approximately 56 per cent. of all the air transport service in the United States is being rendered with machines cruising at a speed of 160 m.p.h. or better, the latest available report from European countries (a survey by the British Air Ministry under date of 1st May, 1934) shows but 33 machines out of a total of 616 owned by all European transport lines which were capable of cruising at better than 125 m.p.h. and only four (two of them importations from the United States) that exceeded 150 m.p.h.
That shows the technical advance and development in America. In view of the annual general meetings of Imperial Airways, when Sir Eric Geddes and Sir Harry Brittain make eulogistic speeches to show how remarkable Imperial Air Services are, I would draw the attention of the House to the following passage in this report:
Over the period from 1st January, 1933, to 31st December, 1934, a total of approximately 421,300,000 passenger miles were flown on American domestic and foreign air lines with 33 passenger fatalities, an average of 12,800,000 passenger miles per fatality. No European country appears to have a record even approximately as good, over any volume of operation large enough to permit of fair comparisons. British airlines, everywhere highly regarded for the care with which they are operated and for their devotion to safety, have had a total of 23 passenger fatalities in the last four years with but 50,500,000 passenger miles flown in that time, an average of
2,195,000 passenger miles per fatality, or a record inferior by more than three-quarters to that made by American operations in the last two years and by a considerable amount to the American performance in any single year since 1930.
These are very interesting passages, and I think it is only right to read them because I have the greatest admiration for Imperial Airways—they have a difficult and distinctive task different from that in America—but one cannot extol them to the skies always. One must compare them with roughly analogous undertakings, and they have still a long way to go.
I want to draw the attention of the House to something which was said in the Gorell Committee. They were asked to investigate private flying. The composition was such that the members of the committee probably knew more about the subject than any witness who was brought before them. Mr. Gordon England and myself, with an enthusiasm that pushed us a little off the rail perhaps, put in a minority report saying that nothing better could happen to civil aviation than that it should be divorced entirely from the Air Ministry. Lord Londonderry rapped us severely on the knuckles for it, in an introduction to the publication of the report. In the American report it is recommended that a new secretary of commerce should take over civil aviation, road, rail and all forms of transport; in other words exactly the same things that we recommended. In the introduction to this document I ought to point out that President Roosevelt accepts this, and he states:
At a later date I shall ask the Congress for general legislation centralising the supervision of air and water and highway transportation with adjustments of our present methods of organisation in order to meet new and additinal responsibilities.
I would not ask for this inquiry into the whole of the production and reorganisation of the Air Ministry of the Under-Secretary or of the Secretary of State, but we have the Leader of the House here, and I put it to him that after the speech of my right hon. Friend he will realise how much this question needs investigating. My right hon. Friend once said that civil aviation could fly by itself. You may say it is a good thing to have civil machines and English types flying at public expense everywhere all over the world carrying the flag, or that you can help the industry to start building a
machine that will pay by carrying the third-class passenger. There are two separate policies, but I cannot help saying that the nation that first does the latter will win the command of the world in the air. The Under-Secretary of State stated that he was organising a competition for big machines. I only hope that it will be made essential that the Diesel engine be compulsory. It is unfortunate that aeroplanes have to fly with petrol; so many small accidents become bonfires. We are already ahead in this type of engine; it is essential we preserve our position, as in the long hauls that are wrapped up in the proposition of inter-communication between various parts of the Empire, the use of the Diesel engine introduces such economy of fuel as to justify its initial extra weight, apart from its actual economy in the cost of fuel. I should like to say a word on that very important point of the spread of manufactories throughout the country. The Air Ministry have realised that you must not have all manufacturers in one part of the country, because of the necessity for protecting aerodromes and workmen. If we have a sudden conflict, aeroplane manufacturing works will be the first object of attack. The moment you put your enemy's works out of action you can go on with the war quite safely. I no not think the aircraft industry has been organised from the point of view of the possibility of hostilities on a sufficiently broad basis. I think that the future has got to be looked at from that angle, not just first line strength, but that immediately hostilities begin there may be the possibility of building, and building and building. I do not want to take more of the time of the House, but I do hope that these considerations will be followed up by other Members in asking for an inquiry into the whole of the aircraft production relative to the Air Ministry. I would say, as far as the Secretary and Under-Secretary are concerned, that I have such confidence in them that I should be perfectly happy and satisfied if an inquiry such as I have adumbrated were held under either of the right hon. Gentlemen as chairman.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I cannot help thinking that the speech made by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in one sense is really encouraging, for if the
alarming statements he made are true, then the nations of the world are in such a situation as must be quite intolerable. With all nations having thousands of aeroplanes which must involve disaster and destruction, they must realise that security lies only in a collective security such as the Government are trying to bring about. The Under-Secretary, in bringing forward the Estimates in his usual graceful and attractive way, made one or two statements to which I should life to refer. He referred to the fact that he was subject to attacks from two sides—those who said we had not enough air armaments, and those who wanted to do away with all military aircraft. Who is there in this House, other than the Leader of the Opposition, who desires to abolish aircraft unilaterally? If this abolishing of military aircraft were to be done by convention, then he must have been alluding to the policy of the Government itself. It is difficult to understand what he meant by that. He also alluded to the fact that in every country in the world some kind of criticism is levelled at the Government in much the same way as it is here, but every country in the world is making claims about the great contributions they think they have made to disarmament—claims we make here, perhaps justifiably, but other countries make them also.
My right hon. Friend alluded, in a passage to which I listened with some astonishment, to the work done for disarmament by the Government during the last three years as something sincerely and patiently carried through. That is his view. I will not express any view of my own, but I will call attention to the views of a lady, Mrs. Corbett Ashby, who for three years was a member of the British Delegation at the Disarmament Conference, and, therefore, had the opportunity of seeing from the inside exactly the spirit in which the Government tackled disarmament problems. What does she have to say? In her letter of resignation she says:
For nearly three years I did my utmost to urge the Government to support any practical schemes for mutual security. We consistently passed over every suggestion put forward by the political commission.
There you have a statement put forward by one in a position to judge the exact claim made by the Under-Secre-
tary. I cannot help feeling that if one accepts the armament policy, the foreign policy of the Government as a whole, the case for increased Air Estimates is absolutely made out. Maybe, they are not asking for enough, for if you are involved in an armament race you have to do your best to win, though the result of winning will be disaster. As we on these benches fundamentally differ with the objects, with the way in which the Government want to use the armed forces and the Air Force, we are proposing to vote against the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. However sincere many Members of the Government are in their policy, it is really not collective security. If ever they were backing that policy, they have abandoned it, and are now working up a system of competitive armaments to which there is no end except another world war. I would not be prepared to trust the Government with any of our armed forces, because they would use them in the wrong way. I would like to see this Government succeeded by another National Government, consisting of Members from each party who really believe in the collective system, and are determined to do their utmost to make a success of it. I believe that that is the kind of Government the people of this country desire to see.

Mrs. TATE: In the event of such a Government being set up, would the hon. Member do what he did before—be returned to support that Government, and then spend his entire life voting against it?

Mr. MANDER: The hon. Lady would not make a charge of that kind, which is entirely untrue, if she were fully seized of the circumstances. When she comes to appreciate them, I am sure that she will apologise. I was returned to support the first National Government, and I supported it without fail. I fulfilled my pledges to the letter, and, when that Government broke up, I was free. I resent such a charge lightly thrown like that.
The one hopeful sign at the present time is the reference at the top of page 4 of the Memorandum to the disarmament policy of the Government, where it says, referring to an air pact, that—
it is their earnest hope that it may facilitate the early limitation of the air forces of the world by general international agreement.
If the Government are really able to put that through, to use their enthusiasm to-drive it through, then they will have rendered an immense service to the world. I am afraid, however, that it is too late. There is nothing to indicate that they have the ability to put this through. Their recent clumsy introduction of the White Paper will not help. A far more clumsy incident has just happened in Germany. We have a direct chain of most unfortunate consequences. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it does not logically follow from the policy the Government are pursuing in the matter of the Air Pact on which the Foreign Secretary is going to Berlin on Sunday—I am sure with the good wishes of everybody—that there should inevitably be separate consultations, very difficult to envisage and arrange but inevitable, between Germany and France, France and England, and England and Germany as to the objectives. Surely it will be necessary to decide what particular parts shall be dealt with by these different countries. Surely the discussions on limitation which are referred to here by the Secretary of State will take as their basis the Draft Convention of the British Government which was laid before the Disarmament Conference in the early part of 1933. The air part of that Convention envisaged 500 machines each for England, France and Italy, presumably 500 for Germany and 150 for Belgium. Is not that the basis on which the Government will start, and to which they will try to get as near as possible? Under Article 35 of the British Government's own Convention they look forward to a situation when, through the activities of the Disarmament Commission, military aviation will be abolished altogether and there will be an internationalisation of Civil Aviation. I hope the Government will be able to confirm that it is still their policy to work along those lines.
The Lord Privy Seal was asked yesterday why the Air Sub-Committee at Geneva had not met, and he gave what seemed to me a perfectly reasonable reply, that without Germany there it would be difficult to make progress, but if we are able to get German co-opera-
tion surely the meetings of that Committee will begin once again, the problem will be threshed out there. I hope we shall give some sympathetic consideration to the French proposal, which I believe is still the policy of the French Government, to have something in the nature of an international air force for the purpose of protection against the danger, when military aviation has ben abolished, of the conversion of civil aircraft to bombing purposes; that we shall not confine ourselves merely to pointing out the difficulties, which are immense and very easy to find, but will see how far it may be practicable to overcome them. If it is found, as a result of those negotiations, that Germany is, as may be the case, though I hope not, unwilling to play the game, unwilling to co-operate in a collective scheme, the right policy would still be to go forward and to assemble in a collective co-operating system as many of the air forces of the world as possible. If we cannot get everybody in, let us get in as many as we can, with a view to creating ultimately a situation in which the whole lot will be included. I see no alternative to that but the mad and fantastic and fatal race in armaments.
Coming to a few comments on the technical side, I would point out that to-day we are dealing with the most important of all the three services, the one that is bound in the years to come to assume a more dominating and commanding position wherever force is used in the world. The Army and the Navy are almost obsolescent, and in course of time, owing to air development, will become of minor importance and tend to decay. I desire, therefore, that while military air forces exist in the world ours shall be as efficient as we can possibly make it. Airmen are the cavalry of the clouds. On peace service they are taking risks every day of their lives in a manner which the men of the other Services, excepting those serving in submarines, are not called upon to take, and I believe we ought to give them every possible support. The type of men going into the Air Force now are better than ever before, and we have every reason to be proud of this junior of the three Services. I cannot help regretting that when the international force was sent to the Saar recently the Air Force was not
associated with it. I believe the matter was considered and that those on the spot were not unfavourable. One can well understand that in reconnaissance work, for going round the frontier or seeing whether meetings were taking place, valuable assistance might have been given by the Air Force.
The Under-Secretary stated that there are to be 11 new home defence squadrons this year, made up of Auxiliary Air Force or Special Reserve squadrons. He did not indicate which, and I should be very much interested if he were able to say which of the two they are to be. I imagine there will be a development of the Auxiliary Air Force, as I believe it has been found that there is far greater esprit de corps with them, and that they have been found in practice to be much more successful than the Special Reserve squadrons. I would like to know also whether we are proposing to provide the very latest type of underground concrete hangars, bomb proof and gas proof, as in France and, no doubt, in Germany and other countries. It may be that the Air Ministry take the view that owing to the enormous expense involved it is better to concentrate on other things, but it would be interesting if some information could be given. I welcome the development of the university squadrons. I realise the excellent work which those associated with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have done. It is now being extended to London, and possibly it is intended, in due course, to associate them with the other Universities. So long as young men have to be obtained for work of this kind I cannot help thinking that the Universities are as good an avenue as one could possibly find.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to-experiments which are to take place in high altitude flying—in the stratosphere, I suppose. Could he give some information of what exactly is contemplated, and whether it is proposed to fly at above 30,000 feet? There is an interesting reference to enabling heavily-loaded machines to take off. I would like to know how far we have gone in that direction. I see that it is proposed that a heavily-loaded seaplane shall take off from a lightly-loaded flying-boat, with a view to getting a machine into the air that will be able to break some long dis-
tance records. I was glad to hear what was said about the attempts which the Air Force will make from time to time in the course of their ordinary duties to break records, and to let this country be the holder of the long distance and altitude records. That is a most admirable ambition for the Air Force—to enable us to be supreme, as we ought to be, in these developments in the air.
I read with some sadness the passage in page 9 of the Secretary of State's statement in which he referred to airships. I see in the papers to-night that the largest German Zeppelin is to pay us a visit in the summer. What is our position going to be? I gather that beyond gazing up into the sky and admiring this wonderful creation we must be content to know that there is at Cardington a nucleus staff "continuing to make a close study of airship development abroad." That is not very satisfying to me, and I greatly regret that it was found necessary, as an economy, to cut down airship development, and hope the time will come, when we have the money to spare for Civil Aviation, when we shall once again play our part with a view to seeing whether we cannot attain the supremacy which ought to be ours in this realm too. It is regrettable to see that Civil Aviation is absorbing only 3 per cent. of this Vote. I sincerely hope the time will come when military aviation will absorb 3 per cent. only and all the rest will go to Civil Aviation. I cannot help feeling, as I have already said, that the possibilities of the danger of the situation are so great that the world may be brought to its senses sooner than otherwise.

Mrs. TATE: I hope the hon. Member will excuse me for interrupting him again. He tells us he is in favour of all the money going to Civil Aviation, but just one sentence before he said that he was in favour of airships. Is he aware how much an airship costs; and, if he wishes to have airships, how are they to be bought if we are not going to increase our Estimates?

Mr. MANDER: The hon. Lady does not understand that there is no reason why airships should not be used for civil purposes; they are so used by Germany. I was contemplating a development in which we should have British airships
going round the world carrying perfectly peaceful passengers, and the hon. Lady's interruption has no relevance to what I was saying. She is very eager to speak, and I am looking forward very much to hearing her speak. Perhaps she will restrain herself for a few minutes longer. I hope the time will come when the Government's own policy will succeed, the policy of limiting military aircraft and finally abolishing them, and that this country will employ its great weight and immense influence to achieve that end at the earliest possible date.

7.28 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Some naturalists have alleged that only two British mammals, the roe deer and the badger, are capable of suspended gestation, but I feel that there might be included in that unhappy category backbench Members who have, as in my case, sat through four days of Defence Policy Debates without having the opportunity of giving birth to even a very few remarks. When I came down to the House this afternoon I was in considerable doubt as to the latitude which the Rules of the House would allow in discussing the Air Estimates, particularly in their relation to the other Estimates, but since the last speaker was the only one who has dealt directly with the Estimates themselves I feel fairly confident that I shall not go outside the bounds of order in the few remarks I wish to make. Owing to the turn the Debate has taken I regret less the calamity—it was nothing less than a calamity—that last Monday's Debate, arranged to consider the Services as a whole, should in the event have turned into a Debate on foreign policy. It may be that this afternoon we shall be able to some extent to repair the damage. I hope that every Member of the Front Bench read the admirable leading article in the "Times" on Friday surveying that Debate. That article expressed in perfect form the views on defence as a whole which many of us have felt so strongly for so long and have wished to have the opportunity of expressing in this House. I hope that we shall be given another opportunity of doing so.
I am glad that the Debate has ranged rather more widely than the actual Estimates; if that had not been the case, the Debate, so far as the Service side is concerned, would have turned into little more
than a technical exercise in political speaking on the part of our very limited stock of obsolete ex-airmen. Hon. Members in all parts of the House join in deploring the fact that the increase in the Service Estimates has been forced upon us by the situation which has developed in the world. The taxpayer sees falling hopes of a remission of taxation. Those of us who sit for industrial constituencies have no doubt whatever as to the pacifism, in the best sense of the word, of the population as a whole. Those of us who spent four of the best years of our lives engaged in the last War, particularly if we have children, as I have, who may be engaged in the next war, cannot be accused of not being in sympathy with the views of the mass of the population. The Government are wise in always keeping before them the objective of a limitation of armaments by agreement. The only point of division is as to how to achieve that objective.
I am certain that the Government were right in introducing these Estimates in the way in which they have, and in putting the situation bluntly before the country. I see no reason whatever, although I know their action has been criticised in many places, for boggling over the fact that it is Germany and the German situation that has forced this position upon us. The action of Germany in the last two or three days appears to have vindicated completely the action which the Government have taken. It may be admitted, in mitigation of Germany's action, that Germany, like the rest of the world, is obsessed by fear. Fear is at the bottom of all the trouble, but who has the greatest cause for fear? Why should we slur over the fact that four times within the memory of living men Germany has aggressively disturbed the peace of the world? If anybody has cause to fear it is the neighbours of Germany and not only Germany herself.
We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) of very disturbing circumstances, and I have no doubt that what he has told us is accurate. Only a fortnight ago I was told by a man who is in a position to know—he is not a man who speaks loosely—that one of the great engineering factories in Germany has
been turning out the most powerful aeroplane engines at the rate of 50 a week, and that those engines were not being put into machines but were going into reserve. As the right hon. Gentleman said, when you talk about aircraft you soon get into almost astronomical figures, and the question we have to ask is: For what purpose have the German Government been building up for months past this great reserve of powerful engines? When the Foreign Secretary goes to Germany to seek limitation by agreement he will go with two assets, the first of which is the firm line that His Majesty's Government are taking. He will be able to point to the fact that this country is prepared to face force by force, if the worst comes to the worst. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said the other day, this time, if this country can prevent it, Germany is not to be allowed to get away with it.
When the German Government try to assess the situation in this country, they should not ignore that very good and very important leading article which was published in the "Daily Herald" on 7th December last. That article expressed what I believe is the real voice of sane labour in this country—not the voice of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they are performing their perfectly legitimate functions of opposition in this House, or which they and their colleagues use in the country upon political platforms. It expresses the sane, common sense view which British labour has always taken in peace and in war, and I am certain will continue to take. I do not intend to quote the article, although I have it in my pocket. I hope that it will be read, marked, learned and inwardly digested.
In addition to the strong, or at least strongish, line which the Government have taken, the Foreign Secretary will I believe have another asset in dealing with Germany, and a rather surprising one; it is the background of sympathy and good will towards Germany and the German people which not even the crass blunders of the German Government for a period of years have been able to dispel. Many people will remember how, even during the War, one was constantly being surprised at the good will which the ordinary British private soldier instinc-
tively felt for his German opposite number. That fact should make it easier for a people who are suffering from inferiority complex to come to agreement with us. There is a feeling in this country, however little deserved it may be, that Germany has not been fairly treated.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) used a sentence in his speech to which I would like to make a reference. He said that one of our objectives should be to abolish these terrible weapons and that they must be kept off the battlefields of the world. I have always held the view that in the ultimate, air power will secure the abolition of war, but I believe that it is putting the cart before the horse to suggest, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) did just now, that we must first secure the abolition of military aircraft. We need to abolish the battlefields themselves, not the weapons which make war most terrible and something upon which people are most reluctant to enter. The psychological effect upon the nations of the world of this terrible weapon is to make them more reluctant to go to war. Admittedly, the objective should be the total abolition of war, but do not let us try to get at it from the wrong end. I believe that the air weapon is the best deterrent we have against war.
May I briefly refer to another aspect of the subject? Reference is made in the Estimates to the Imperial Defence College. It is stated:
The Imperial Defence College in London was opened in January, 1927, for the purpose of training a body of officers of the fighting services and civilian officials in the broadest aspects of Imperial strategy and the occasional examination of concrete problems of Imperial defence.
I make this submission to the House: Both by the creation of the Imperial Defence College and by the Motion that was on the Orders for yesterday week, successive Governments and the present Government have accepted the principle that the Services are one entity, and should be under one directional control. I urge the Government without delay to get on with the job of carrying that principle to its logical conclusion, by the creation of a joint general staff. On Thursday last, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Navy Esti-
mates, emphasised the point that the Navy and the Royal Air Force were complementary and not in competition with each other. I entirely agree, but it ought not to be necessary for the First Sea Lord to have to make that claim. Parliament ought to know that a detached unbiassed joint general staff is seeing that they are not in competition. The mere fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty feels obliged to emphasise the point is an admission that the claims of the two Services are at present in conflict, whatever anybody may say about it.
On the Navy Estimates we heard an argument between the two hon. and gallant admirals sitting opposite. One argued that the introduction and development of air power had rendered the big ship obsolete, and the other argued that the big ship still remained the main pivot of our defence policy. I am not concerned which of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen was right; they may both be wrong for all I know or care, but that sort of argument should not be possible in this House. That matter ought to be settled, not by argument among members of the House of Commons, but by a joint general staff, whose opinion would be accepted by every one. The "Times" in its leading article last Friday summarised the position very well when it said, dealing with the joint general staff:
The longer that the issue is postponed, the more uneasiness will grow as to whether we have the best insurance policy for our needs and for the premium we are paying.
I urge the Government to implement at the earliest possible moment the admission which they have already made, and to create a joint general staff, because only by that means can we hope to achieve a balance between the Services. Only by that means can the Government hope to receive non-partisan advice on the matter of the Service Estimates. I did not mean to speak for so long, but seeing the hon. and gallant admirals rather led me away from the point I had to make.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I cannot presume to make a contribution on the technical side of the Service, the Estimates of which we are discussing; indeed, the technical side of the question is relatively insignificant beside the big issues of policy which are embodied in the Estimates. I have listened to the whole of the Debate and have
heard one speech which was a very welcome relief to the tragic gloom of the others. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House protest that they detest war, but, so far as I can gather, they are eminently in favour of increasing the instruments of war. I would not impute to hon. Members opposite any more desire than is possessed by any normal individual to have murderous instincts, but there can be no doubt that the policy they are pursuing, as embodied in these Estimates and in the speeches which we have heard to-night, is such that they are not prepared to trust the instruments of peace equally with the implements of war.
Having no particular affection for Germany or for Hitlerism in particular, I have been very surprised to-night to listen to speeches which have seemed to make Germany the excuse for an increase in armaments. Those speeches have been very largely—almost entirely, with one exception, from supporters of the Government—pointed at Germany. Germany has been named as the reason for all the increases that have been made. I am not putting up a case for Germany except to say that, after all, some responsibility rests upon the Government of this country as far as the position in Germany is concerned. This country subscribed to a vindictive, punitive peace treaty. This country refused, it seems to me, to adopt such an amenable attitude towards a democratic Government in Germany as it has now been compelled to adopt towards a dictatorship in Germany, and to-night's Debate has certainly not helped the mission of the Foreign Secretary to Germany, because these speeches and indeed these Estimates have shown the almost complete reliance of hon. Members opposite on unilateral armament and an increase in the armaments of this country in order to defend us.
I listened to the scaremongering speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who endeavoured to make our flesh creep. With regard to his figures, I am not competent to refute them. All the same, I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to deal with them. The whole of that speech was a reliance on protection for this country on the basis of a race in armaments. He envisaged not merely a paltry £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 increase. The
right hon. Gentleman always speaks in broad sweeps, and I believe he did not even boggle at an increase of £60,000,000 a year. Was ever such a mad policy put before the House of Commons? Was there ever such a policy enunciated, pregnant with bankruptcy for civilisation and indeed with terrible and drastic danger for this country? There was no thought or consideration in that speech for the terrible cost involved—cost in money, cost in trade, cost in human life. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that while we entered on the War in 1914 with an Income Tax of 1s. or 1s. 6d., we should start the next war with a 4s. 6d. Income Tax, that while the National Debt in 1914 was about £800,000,000, we should enter the next war with a debt of somewhere about £7,800,000,000 and with Customs duties amounting to about £186,000,000 a year.
Where are the reserves to fight the next war that the right hon. Gentleman seems so complacently to envisage? We are told that we on this side are not prepared to face realities, that the stark reality is the need for armaments. The realities of the situation, as far as we see it, are not only the realities that hon. and right hon. Members opposite look at. There are other sides of the real situation. One, as I have pointed out, is the economic bankruptcy, the destruction of civilisation, that is involved in the next war. I believe that we have never yet put our faith in the League of Nations, that the post-war period of peace has not been based upon the League of Nations. It is true that the League of Nations has helped in various ways and has given hope to men and women in various countries, but the stark, naked fact of the post-war period has been that it has been a peace dictated in the Versailles Treaty by the military predominance of those who were the victors in the last war and maintained by those who have been powerful since the War. Never yet has this Government, this country, really put its faith in a collective system of security; never yet has it put its faith in the working of the League of Nations.
That system has broken down. The system of a dictated peace has gone. The re-armament of Germany means that, and we are now at the point where I ask the Government, Are they now going to alter their attitude towards the whole system
of securing peace among the nations of the world? Are they prepared now, hi face of German re-armament, not to say that we shall go on arming because that inevitably leads to war? There is no security for peace in armaments, and now that this new situation has arisen, it seems to me that here is an opportunity for the Government to come along and say, "We recognise that the bankruptcy of civilisation is in the next war, that in the past the League of Nations has not functioned as it should have functioned. We, the British nation, instead of increasing our Air Force, our Navy, our Army, are prepared to increase the power of the League of Nations and to strengthen the collective system." That cannot be done when the policy of the Government is based upon the philosophy enunciated by the Lord President of the Council the other night, when he said that our moral and material strength would depend upon the force that we could command. I do not believe in such a philosophy as that. I think history has shown that that is completely false.
Will the Government tell us that in their efforts for peace they are prepared to do the vital thing? There can be no peace if Britain is going to build her Air Force bigger and is going to maintain complete national control over that Air Force. The price of peace is the sacrifice of national sovereignty as far as the declaration of peace and war is concerned. We cannot get any farther along the road to peace until we as a nation are prepared to say that we will not reserve to ourselves the right to declare peace and war. We cannot get along the road to peace until that crucial issue is faced, but the Government is not facing it, is not making an effort along that line. I heard the other day of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury making a speech in Norwood, at the by-election there. He said that the Labour party wanted war with weak forces, war and weakness, whereas the Government wanted strength and peace, a big Navy, a big Army, and a big Air Force, all in the cause of peace for this defenceless, helpless little island. The Germans have been saying exactly the same kind of thing, and indeed with infinitely more cause than we have had. The case put forward by Hitler with
regard to the compulsory disarmament of Germany is unanswerable. Germany was compelled to disarm to the point of being defenceless for a long period of years. We pledged ourselves that we would see that the compulsory disarmament of Germany should create the conditions which would allow us to disarm. When and where have we disarmed?
To-night we have seen that the position of Germany, owing to the rise of Hitlerism and the development of her armaments, is being used to give our warmongers and the armament people in this country an excuse for the further development of armaments here. As a Socialist, I challenge the Liberal Members, and more particularly the Tory Members, including the National Labour Members: How are they going to get peace under the system of capitalism? The right hon. Gentleman to-night gave us a speech which seemed to me to show that there is no hope in private competitive systems, in systems in which nations fight each other for spheres of trade, for the ownership and control of raw materials, for monopolies, for spheres of influence. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-night convinced me that there is no hope in the capitalist system for any peace security. This is the bankruptcy of capitalism. Every pound up on the Air Force means the bankruptcy of capitalism, the destruction of capitalism, and if hon. and right hon. Members opposite want to preserve and maintain the capitalist system itself, they ought to be very keen indeed on furthering all projects for peace, they ought to be prepared to make the sacrifice which is demanded by peace efforts, the sacrifice which is involved in a true international outlook, the sacrifice which means that a measure of sovereignty will have to be given up.
I have listened to the whole of this Debate. It has been indeed a significant Debate. To my mind it has been a tragic Debate. It shows on the other side of the House a spirit which responds to every appeal for an increase in armaments, and that must mean a response to war which is inevitable in the future unless we get this Government supplanted by another. In order to secure peace we must not only see that foreign policies are right, but we must also see that the
capitalism of Britain to-day is changed for the Socialism of Britain to-morrow.

8.1 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) devoted a great deal of his speech to a certain amount of attack on the speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). As I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has now come into the House, I shall not feel obliged to defend him. I do not think that when the hon. Member for Aberavon says that we are not making sacrifices, he cannot realise all the sacrifices we have made during; the last few years in the cause of peace. Surely he does not think that we are aggressive. I do not think any one thinks we are aggressive. We covet no people's possessions. All we want is to protect our own people, and how we shall do it by following the suggestion of hon. Members opposite that we should give up our power either to declare war or to maintain peace I do not know. I do not think it would help in the many onerous responsibilities we have in our great Empire. The hon. Member for Aberavon talked about ourselves as a defenceless little island. It is because we are a defenceless little island that we need the protection of our armed forces, small though they are to-day. He said that if we require protection for our little island, how much more did the great German nation require protection, and how much more justified was Germany. Our armed forces are needed not only for the defence of this island but for the protection of peoples all over the world in our Empire.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), who opened this Debate and whose speech, I know, was listened to in all parts of the House with the greatest possible interest, and for whose very kind references to myself I am most grateful, devoted a great deal of that speech to urging the necessity for an international air force. He thought that if an international air force could be constituted, it would solve all the ills which beset us now. An international air force would, I presume, operate under the control of the League of Nations. That is a question which has been discussed for several years now, and in certain aspects is attractive. The French proposals to which
he refers did not, in the first place refer only to air forces. It referred to the general idea of a military force under the League. We are discussing it now limited in relation to air forces. The primary object of that proposal would be to change the League into a military body, into a kind of super-national body—I had almost said a supernatural body. It would convert the League into a military machine, a condition which is completely foreign to the original idea of the League of Nations. It would certainly deprive nations entering into it of independent sovereignty.
To these objections of principle must be added other objections, perhaps not insuperable, but nevertheless practical. Several questions arise. How is the command of such a force to be effectively operated by a body, comprised as it must be, of many different kinds of nations, with different training, different ideas, and different interests? How are conflicting national loyalties to be overcome? How is it to be financed? Where is it going to be located? Who is going to command it? How many nations would be represented on the general staff? I am not raising difficulties; I am only putting forward a few of the questions which have interested people very much, questions to which they have not yet found a complete answer. I think, therefore, the idea of this international air force must remain unattainable. Meanwhile, an important pact which has recently been produced by Britain and France for regional and mutual arrangements for common defence against air aggression offers a very practicable route towards that end. I was very glad to hear the excellent speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain H. Balfour) in which he developed that so well.
The right hon. Member for Epping asked me certain questions about the first-line strength of the Air Force. Perhaps I might define a little more precisely the figures which I used in my speech, and on which he questioned me. There are, as I said, being formed this year 11 additional squadrons for the Air Force, each squadron of 12 machines, and one and a half squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm, which represents 19 aircraft. This gives a total of 151 first-line aircraft. Further to that, he also questioned
the other series of figures in which I described the first-line strength of the British Air Force all the world over. If I may take the figure of the current year, a figure of 1,020, that represents the first-line strength of the British Air Force all the world over, including the Fleet Air Arm and auxiliary squadrons, but not including any reserve machines at all, or any machines used for training purposes. I think that answers my right hon. Friend's question. If you deduct the first-line machines overseas, it will give you 690 this year, 810 for 1935 and 950 for 1936.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend would make it very much plainer if he explained how this relates to the figure of 560, plus 127, given by the Lord President in November.

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that the Lord President was dealing actually with that particular point, but I do not see that it matters. What we want to know is our first-line strength to-day, and if the figure is more satisfactory than the right hon. Gentleman expected, I imagine he is delighted to hear it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Do we mean the same thing?

Sir P. SASSOON: I mean the first-line strength of the British Air Force, that is to say every aeroplane in the first line of the squadrons, not including reserve machines, or training machines, or anything. Is that clear? It is a very complicated thing, and perhaps the explanation I gave earlier in the afternoon was very hasty. I am delighted to have the opportunity of making these figures clear. Again, my right hon. Friend asked me how it is that we are going to order nearly 100 per cent. more aircraft in 1935 whereas Vote 3 is only up by rather more than £1,000,000. The explanation is simple. My right hon. Friend has had far more experience of bringing in Estimates than I have had and knows all about them. We shall order 1,000 machines. That does not mean that we shall necessarily get delivery of them all within the year. It may be that we shall not, and that is why I particularly safeguarded myself in my speech by saying, in view of that fact I presumed that the figure for
this Vote would probably be substantially increased in 1936. I am firmly of opinion that we shall get the bulk of the machines in 1935.
My right hon. Friend stated that, according to his information, the German Air Force was to-day already as strong as our own, and that by the end of this calendar year it will be 50 per cent. stronger. I do not think that I can follow him into a morass of figures which must be, after all, as he would be the first to admit, very largely conjectural. I notice that the German Air Minister, General Goering, the other day—and he does not usually minimise his achievements—said that the figures which were commonly accepted for the air force of Germany were grossly exaggerated. Anyhow, we will see, as my right hon. Friend says, in the course of a very few weeks what is the figure the Germans themselves put upon their air force. It is hoped that after the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Berlin, we shall know more about it. After all, the Germans are apparently anxious to discuss the whole question with us, and I presume that on his return the Foreign Secretary will be able to give us a clearer picture of what is rather confusing and complicated at the present moment. We have no official statistics, but, according to the latest information in our possession, it is not correct that Germany is already stronger than this country. Even confining comparison to the number of machines we have in this country, in terms of first-line strength we believe that, including the Auxiliary Air Force and the special reserve, which, I think, are far better units for military purposes than my right hon. Friend thinks they are—taking them and the Fleet Air Arm squadrons based on home waters, we have a substantially stronger force. In terms of the total number of military aircraft which we and Germany respectively possess, and all the background of training and organisation which is essential to the efficiency of a military air service, we have every reason to think that we are to-day still stronger than Germany.
To look a little further into the future, on the basis of such information as we have, it is also not correct to say that at the end of the present calendar year the German Air Force will be 50 per cent. stronger than ours either on the basis of
first-line strength or on the basis of the total number of aircraft. So far as we can at present estimate, we shall still, at the end of this year, possess a margin of superiority. At this stage when conversations are beginning, when every day the veils of secrecy are being torn more and more apart, when we see more and more clearly where we stand, I will refrain from going into any further figures which might be conjectural, but will merely repeat that, as the Lord President of the Council said in his speech in November, our programme must be regarded as one which can be either increased or decreased as circumstances may require. I say "decreased," because, after all, we have not given up the hope of a limitation of armaments and the possibility of a Convention, and we do not consider that expansion or acceleration has yet been rendered finally necessary, though I do not pretend, and no one else can pretend, that the situation is one which does not give us all cause for grave anxiety.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: If I might interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment, there were two points, as it seemed to me, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made in his speech. One was that the situation had deteriorated very seriously since the Lord President's speech last November, and on that the Under-Secretary says that the figures are conjectural, and that, with all these conversations and so forth, we ought not to go into that point. That I can understand. The other point was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said that the Lord President's figures, which he gave in November, were not accurate then, and he challenged the Government to say whether they stood by those figures. Could the Under-Secretary make it quite clear whether or not they stand by the figures given by the Lord President?

Sir P. SASSOON: As I said in my main speech, we thought that the figures which were given in November were not conjectural, and, whatever was the basis of our information, we thought we might have at the end of this year, as the Lord President said, a 50 per cent. superiority over Germany. From that point of view the situation has deteriorated. There has been great acceleration, as far as we
know, in the manufacture of aircraft in Germany, but still, in spite of that, at the end of this year we shall have a margin, though I do not say a margin of 50 per cent. I would only say that as far as I know it is not the case that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping said, Germany at the end of this year will have a 50 per cent. superiority over us.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What about the other point, that in November we were, as the Lord President said, 50 per cent. stronger than the Germans? Now I gather that the idea is that we are still stronger, but nothing like double as strong. Is that so?

Sir P. SASSOON: I can only repeat that we are stronger to-day than the Germans, and we think that at the end of the year we shall be stronger. After all, these figures are all conjectural. We are all after the same object, and quite obviously, when things are more clarified, the Government are preparing to see that no stone shall be left unturned for the adequate protection of this country and the Empire.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in order to educate the people of this country in the art of aeronautics and to develop home industries, this House is of opinion that further assistance should be given to the light aeroplane clubs and gliding movements, and that the manufacture of light aeroplanes and gliders in this country should he actively promoted.
The Air Ministry and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have many records to their credit. I am going to put forward another humble record. This is the second consecutive occasion on which I have won this Motion in the Ballot. I do not know whether Sir Erskine May has laid down any provision for what happens if a Member wins the same Motion three times. In the case of a trophy, I understand that the winner can keep it, and so, if I am fortunate next year, I shall be applying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your guidance as to whether I shall be able to keep the Air Ministry Vote for myself.
Last year I moved an Amendment about aeroplanes; this year I have chosen one on gliders and light aeroplane clubs, and I will tell the House why I have chosen it. In the first place, I find myself rather resembling a glider. I am a machine entirely without power. By the good fortune of the Ballot I have been catapulted off the land—where I have a little more knowledge of political questions—over the precipice into the Department of my right hon. Friend, and know the House will be asking, "How long is he going to keep up?" In gliding we are kept in the air by the warm currents, and I am told that this House is ventilated by warm currents of air, so I am relying entirely upon the ventilation for keeping up. Most Members will know that that is not a very sanguine hope. I recall the fact that the record for gliding was obtained in my constituency, where a glider was able to keep up in the air for 5¼ hours. If I emulate that, I shall be approaching the record set by Mr. Joe Biggar very many years ago. In my constituency we have the finest natural gliding ground in the whole of this country. For two consecutive years the national competitions have taken place at Sutton Bank, and we have already in the constituency two gliding clubs pursuing this sport. It is an important sport. When I recall some of the speeches of Socialist Members of the Opposition denouncing the building of military planes and describing the Government as warmongers, I feel sure I shall have their support in moving this Motion about gliders and light aeroplane clubs, because nobody can possibly accuse me of being a warmonger.
Again, a little time ago I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who confessed that he felt he was gliding down a slippery slope, and I feel sure that, if any of that section of the erstwhile Liberal party of which he is the Leader were in the House at this moment, they would support a Motion upon gliding. The question of light aeroplane clubs I am going to leave as far as possible to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Whiteside). Gliding is a strictly monastic life on the tops of mountains, and two-seaters are seldom used, whereas my hon. Friend, owing to the domestic domain on which he is about to enter,
will probably be more interested in two-seaters.
First of all, may I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a very important decision in the High Court last week, which has threatened the whole existence of this sport of gliding. There was a case entitled Wenner against Johnson, in which the owner of a sporting right secured an injunction against the Midland Gliding Club, preventing that club from using its gliders in any way because of the danger that grouse might be frightened by the gliding. We all of us wish to respect rights of property, whether sporting rights or any other rights, but I want my right hon. Friend very seriously to consider the effect of this case. If it means that gliding clubs throughout the country are going to be prevented by owners of sporting rights from enjoying this sport, I think that the Government should take steps to prevent that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that steps can be taken without legislation?

Mr. TURTON: I am sorry, but I was going to explain exactly how steps could be taken which would not require legislation. I want my right hon. Friend to issue instructions or disseminate information that gliding clubs, before they start operations, should make agreements with owners of sporting rights in the near vicinity. That has been done by the Yorkshire Gliding Club at Sutton Bank, and I believe that it is the only gliding club that has made such an arrangement. This agreement is one under which neighbouring owners allow members to glide over their land. If we get a very warm current of air that pushes us out 20 miles, we may get into territory which is not covered by the agreement, but even so we are pretty safe owing to the fact that no one would apply for an injunction if you merely once strayed over his land. I am not going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to alter any law but merely, when he replies, to tell me whether Section 9 of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, which says that no aircraft can commit any form of trespass, includes the glider. I should think that a glider is as much a craft of the air as a little fishing boat is a craft of the sea. If that be so, we
are protected by the existing law, which does not require amendment, from trespassing over other people's land.
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the very far-sighted and generous decision to give gliding clubs the sum of £5,000 in the way of a subsidy scheme. It is a remarkable decision because the Gorell Committee, most unfortunately in my view, advised the Government not to help gliding clubs financially. If the recommendation of the Gorell Committee—and I see a Member of that Committee present to-night in the person of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard)—had been adopted, it would have meant that we should have continued for long in "the position of being inferior to Germany on the question of gliding.

Mr. EVERARD: During the time that the Gorell Committee was sitting, as my hon. Friend knows quite well, there were great differences in the gliding movement. We thought that it was not the right time for the Government to hand over money to that movement until they had reached a position similar to that in which they are to-day.

Mr. TURTON: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made the matter clear. I was merely mentioning the fact in order to explain how much we have to congratulate my right hon. Friend. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mistake any words of mine by thinking that I am seeking to detract from the very excellent report of the Gorell Committee, but he must remember that the Committee made that report, and that it required a great deal of courage on the part of my right hon. Friend to squeeze £5,000 out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for gliding. What is the object of the subsidy? I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us in his reply. May I assume that it is to help the people of this country to become air-minded?
There is a great danger in the giving of this subsidy. There was at one time a feeling among those interested in this sport that the gliding subsidy was to be distributed on the recommendation of what I would call those who glide from the club arm-chair, the old men who have no practical experience in gliding. That would be a profound mistake. This very valuable subsidy should be given to
the practical men, and the practical clubs who are carrying out this new sport. It should be used as far as possible to help working men to fly. In the country districts gliding clubs usually have their sports on Sunday afternoons, and it is the one sport in which the agricultural labourer in the country can take part and enjoy and learn to be air-minded, because it does not take up much of his time and takes place in that part of the country where he has his work. Nearly every gliding club has a minimum subscription of two guineas which is far too large a sum for a man who is merely getting an agricultural wage. I have had representations made to me from many of those interested in the position of agricultural labourers in Yorkshire begging me to ask my right hon. Friend to try and devise a scheme under this subsidy for the help of the man who cannot afford the gliding club subscription.
I would suggest that the subsidy be divided equally into capital and recurrent expenditure. Under capital expenditure I would suggest that my right hon. Friend should devote the greater part of this subsidy to the purchase of the gliding grounds outright, or to the purchase of a lease for a very long period of years, like 99 years a lease. It is no good having gliding clubs of mushroom growth. The Yorkshire Gliding Club have the opportunity, if the right hon. Gentleman will help, of purchasing their ground from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for a reasonable sum, and that sort of thing ought to be carried out, if possible, in all directions of gliding clubs. There is also the question of permanent buildings. I should think that the Yorkshire club have better buildings than any other club in England at the present moment, but we must get proper hangars so that we can accommodate visiting clubs from overseas, from Germany, so that the gliders may be adequately housed. There is also the importance of adequate repair shops. These gliding grounds are not in the vicinity of large towns, but usually in rather desolate places.
I will give the headings of recurrent expenditure which should be aided by the subsidy. First and foremost is the purchase of machines. This is a point of great importance to British industry. I hope that my hon. Friend will
not agree to one penny of the subsidy being devoted to the purchase of foreign-built machines. We have in this country factories producing English gliders which are as good and even better than any German gliders. A fortnight ago I went to my gliding club ground at Sutton Bank and asked what machine they would prefer to purchase if they were given the money, and they said that they would prefer to purchase machines made at Kirby Moorside in Yorkshire which are designed and made by Englishmen. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will make it clear that some of the subsidy will go to the purchase of machines and equipment built by British labour in England, and also that he will help, not only in the provision of gliders for the expert, but in the provision of the primary glider used in the small clubs for the tuition of those who are learning to glide. The £5,000 grant is quite sufficient for the needs of gliding this year. Whether it will be sufficient next year I very much doubt, because gliding is a sport that is growing. It is a sport in which a great deal of interest is being aroused among the agricultural population. I hope that when the Minister comes to present his Estimates next year he will include a larger sum for gliding, because a greater sum than £5,000 will be required. For the present the £5,000 is entirely adequate.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increase of the subsidy for light aeroplane clubs from £16,000 to £25,000. I regard that £9,000 increase as most necessary, and the House will realise that when it is considered that a venture such as National Flying Services, which was formed for the encouragement of light aeroplane club flying, went bankrupt with a deficit of £61,000. These small flying clubs in the country are doing even worse at the present time. They have a very difficult burden to meet. The Ministry estimate that for an average club the cost per flying hour is £2 15s. I know that in regard to the Yorkshire Flying Club the cost has been worked out at something like £3 15s. per flying hour, and of that £3 15s. they only get a subsidy equivalent to 5s. per flying hour. That is a very low subsidy. When one realises that the tax paid on the petrol is equivalent to 5s. per flying hour, the subsidy does
not assume any magnificent proportions. I think my right hon. Friend might help the light aeroplane clubs in this respect.
There is one suggestion that I would throw out. At the present time if a club member is a member of the Air Force Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force, when he gets his "A" licence the club does not get a single penny of subsidy. That is a great misfortune. Not only is it a hardship to the club but it is a very great hardship to the member, either of the Air Force Reserve or of the Auxiliary Air Force. If he gets his "A" licence he is no use to them and no help to them financially. It would be a very gracious act on the part of my right hon. Friend if he would allow either the whole amount of the subsidy of £25 for a new licence and £10 for renewal or a large percentage of it in respect of members of the Auxiliary Air Force and the Air Force Reserve who qualify for an "A" licence. I hope that on the question of the light aeroplane clubs my right hon. Friend will appreciate his dual capacity. He is Minister of War and also Minister of Transport. Let us not have all our efforts devoted towards the building up of the military side of the Air Force. Let him remember the flying club movement. He can help them not by giving them Belisha beacons but by giving them Neon lights for night flying. That would be a considerable help for the light aeroplane clubs.
I hope that every encouragement will be given to the development of light aeroplanes of low power. The experience of the last few years has meant that the cost of the light aeroplane has increased year by year owing to that love of speed to which both motorists on the road and airmen in the air fall a prey. That is unfortunate because it means that aeroplane flying is going to be a luxury of the rich alone. Lots of people, not well-off, would like to fly, but they cannot afford it. I am told that a 50 horsepower aeroplane is not outside the bounds of possibility. For that reason I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage flying in that direction. The heavy-powered machine that can carry a great load of bombs to wipe out civilisation is not really the true criterion of the progress of civilisation. I would rather say
that a true criterion was the man who without any help or motive power, or with very small help in the case of the light aeroplane, can launch himself into space and imitate the grace and beauty of the bird in movement. The man on the glider is doing what Icarus failed to do at the time of the Greeks. If I were to sum up the beauty and grace of the glider I should like to quote a few lines from Shelley of 100 years ago. In his poem "The Cloud" he wrote:
Over earth and ocean, with gentle motion,
This pilot is guiding me,
Over the rills and the crags, and the hills,
Over the lakes and the plains.
Wherever he dreams, under mountain or stream,
The spirit he loves remains,
And I all the while bask in Heaven's blue smile.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. WHITESIDE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for diverting this Debate from an acrimonious and highly contentious discussion upon the needs of the Royal Air Force to the more tranquil sphere of the peace aspect of flying. It will be interesting to note whether there is a single Member of the Socialist Opposition who is capable of speaking coherently on this subject, or whether their knowledge of aeronautics is limited to its war application and to petty party propaganda. I am one of those who have always maintained that both from the point of view of our national security and from that of the future development of the aircraft industry, civil aviation, which originated in the light aeroplane movement, will play a far more conspicuous part than the Royal Air Force. I am not dismayed by the fact that today for every pound spent on civil aviation £35 is spent on military aviation. I maintain my point of view, for, in reply to a question which I put to the Under-Secretary yesterday, he announced that there were already in this country 2,980 civilian pilots, while there were last year in the Royal Air Force only 2,701 military pilots. When the House realises that civil aviation also appeals to the fair sex I am sure it will realise the possibility of expansion in that direction. Added to these two facts there is an increase of £9,000 in the money which Parliament is
voting by way of subsidy to the light aeroplane clubs. This will undoubtedly stimulate both the aircraft industry and light aeroplane movement. I should therefore like to draw the attention of the House to the words in the Motion:
to develop home industries … the manufacture of light aeroplanes should be actively promoted.
There is no great industry in the history of the world that has grown and prospered when it has been dependent upon a Government Department for its welfare. The motor industry would not be employing thousands of wage earners to-day if the leaders of that industry had stood back and waited for orders from the War Office for tanks and ambulances and Royal Army Corps lorries; nor would our mercantile marine have reached its position of pre-eminence if our dockyards and shipowners had waited upon orders from the Admiralty. But nine-tenths of the aircraft industry is entirely dependent on the Air Ministry for contracts for military machines. It has been admitted by statesmen and politicians, economists and industrialists that unless a new industry is taken to the North of England the industrial north is doomed. Those who live in the south do not realise what unemployment means; the full blast of the depression has never hit their industries; the devastation and silence of a derelict area is unknown to them. But in the north there are chimneys which have not smoked for a decade and young men who have never known what a year's employment means; young men whose fathers and grandfathers before them were skilled engineers.
Here is that new industry for which they wait. It is an industry nine-tenths of which is already dependent on the action of the Government for its survival. I hope that the Under-Secretary, in his reply, will state on behalf of the Government that in the future the policy of the Air Ministry will be to give a preference to those companies who operate in the North of England who produce civil as well as military machines. If the Under-Secretary will make that statement he will not only add to the security of the nation, but many unemployed men in my division will rise on the morrow with renewed hope. But ultimately the future prosperity of the aircraft industry must depend upon the number of people who take to the air, either as passengers in
commercial machines or as pilots, or as owners of private machines.
May I say one word on the question of commercial aviation. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) made certain criticisms of Imperial Airways, and, indeed, many criticisms have been made during the course of the year on the speed of their machines. I myself have been amongst them, but having seen a little of foreign air liners of late I have come to the conclusion that the policy of Imperial Airways has been right and that both from the point of view of safety and comfort their machines are five years ahead of their European rivals. As to the much vaunted American Douglas machine's, in spite of the fact that the Royal Dutch Air Line have given an order for 14 such machines for their own fleet, I am given to understand that in view of the disastrous accident which occurred in the Syrian Desert the Dutch Government may not grant these machines a certificate of airworthiness. If the Under-Secretary has information on this point I hope he will say whether that rumour has any foundation in fact.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order in referring to that matter, but the Under-Secretary will not be in order in replying to the question on this Amendment.

Mr. WHITESIDE: Be that as it may, if this country is to become air-minded, as it is sea-minded, it can only take place through development of the light aeroplane movement. Unfortunately the effects of the depression and the attentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have put flying far beyond the pockets of the majority of our people. If we are to become air-minded the cost of flying must be reduced. Are there any means by which that cost can be lessened? There are three; the scheduling of aerodromes as agricultural land, a remission of the petrol tax, and the subsidising of the pilot in preference to the club. Let me say a word on each of these subjects. History has shown that when a new and rapid means of transport is taken to a particular area that spot becomes a centre of intense activity, houses spring up, shops open and crowds flock to it. In due course the village becomes a small town, and
that in turn grows into a city. That has been the history of the ports and railway termini of this country; and as it has happened on the land and sea so it will happen in the air. But there is something else happened as well. The value of the land in that particular area appreciated, and with that the rateable value of the land increased. That is the problem which light aeroplane clubs have to face. They start an industry, attract people to the area, and as soon as they have done so, they are penalised by an increase of their rates. If you take the argument to its logical conclusion if there was an aerodrome in the centre of London the rateable value of the land would be so great that not a single aircraft operator would be able to use the aerodrome at all. There is no logical reason why an aerodrome should not be scheduled as agricultural land. The Under-Secretary has probably had the same difficulty as I have had in landing at an aerodrome such as Penshurst, where the chief difficulty in landing is the innumerable sheep which are grazing on the aerodrome. There is therefore a logical reason why an aerodrome should be scheduled as pasture land.
As regards the petrol duty, it has been the intention of successive Governments to give some assistance to the light aeroplane clubs, and in 1933 this House voted a sum of £13,000, to be given as a grant to certain clubs. But they reckoned without the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who immediately increased the tax on petrol and recovered from the light aeroplane clubs no less than £16,000 and, therefore, the purpose for which the House voted the £13,000 was entirely nullified. I believe the question is now under discussion, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will have something to say upon it in his reply. The third suggestion I make is in regard to subsidising the pilot. At the moment there are certain light aeroplane clubs which receive a subsidy of £25 for every "A" licence pilot they turn out, and when the pilot renews his licence they receive a further £10. The House may not realise that in order for a pilot to renew his licence he has only to do three hours' flying during the year. It is obviously a ridiculous proposition that in order to induce a man to do three hours' flying a year the Government and the taxpayer should proceed to pay the light
aeroplane clubs £10, nor does it assist the pilot one iota. If he goes straight to the Air Ministry and renews his licence, neither he nor the light aeroplane club receives a penny.
If some system were adopted, such as I understand is adopted in France, it would induce people to take to the air. There a grant is given to a pilot according to the number of hours he flies. Obviously, the more frequently a man flies the more petrol he consumes, the more business is done and the more valuable he becomes, in the event of another war, as a Reserve to the Royal Air Force. The French Government also give a subsidy to assist a man to purchase his machine. If that were adopted in this country, there are a large number of people who would begin to fly whenever possible, and it would be an incentive for them to purchase their machines. It would also stimulate the aircraft industry, and as that is situated in the North it would employ people now in derelict areas; and so help to reduce taxation. If the suggestions I have presumed to make are adopted in principle the aircraft industry would be stimulated and our light aeroplane clubs would play no ignoble part in our industrial development. Indeed, we could look forward to the day when the Blue Ensign of civil aviation will be linked to the Red Ensign of the mercantile marine carrying the tale of the English to every city in the world.

8.55 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Whiteside) on the terms of their Amendment and on their speeches; but it occurred to me that their speeches were in one sense slightly divergent. The hon. Member for Thirsk was plainly asking for more subsidy, both for gliding clubs and light aeroplane clubs. The hon. Member for South Leeds rather took the line that the flying rules should be freed of restrictions. It appears to me that it is impossible to have the one without the other; if you are to have subsidies you must have restrictions. Personally I should be glad to see the subsidy either reduced or abolished if the flying industry could be relieved of all new restrictions. The hon. Member for South Leeds suggested a subsidy on
pilots. I am not quite clear whether he meant a subsidy on a pilot who has got his "A" licence and who after a time renews it, or whether it was to be a subsidy only on private owners who kept up machines, which I understand is the kind of subsidy paid in France.

Mr. WHITESIDE: I suggested that a subsidy be granted according to the number of hours flown, that the pilot should present his log-book to the Ministry at the end of the year, so that the Ministry could see how long he had flown and give a subsidy accordingly.

Lord APSLEY: I quite agree, and I think that that form of subsidy, if subsidy there must be, would be far preferable to the present system. It is the aircraft industry that we want to stimulate too. Companies which keep machines in commission might receive some subsidy as well as private owners who keep machines in commission. That would be assisting both regular flying and the aircraft industry, which is apparently the aim of the subsidy. I wonder how long flying as a sport will last. I agree that the flying clubs have played a valuable part in keeping flying going during the transitional period from the War to the present day. Had it not been for these clubs there would probably be little flying done in this country now. But consider what most of these clubs have been and are. They are run by young ladies and gentlemen living in the neighbourhood who own private cars and who have banded themselves together to take over an aerodrome on probably the cheapest plot of land that can be found, regardless of where it is. They start a club and fly as a sport, for the joy and pleasure of flying and for the fun of taking up a friend of the opposite sex. That was the beginning of the club. To my mind that is all passing away. Indeed flying as a sport will probably not last very much longer.
Gliding is likely to be far more popular as a sport. When gliding has got to such a pitch and gliders have been so perfected that they can stay in the air, and it is possible to have glider races, gliding will become a sport which will compare very favourably with the best forms of yacht racing. But the flying machines, to my mind, are now coming into the sphere rather more of
actual commerce. We have only to look at the motoring trade to see that it went through exactly the same phases. At the start a few enthusiasts who were looked upon as madcaps because they liked to live dangerously, banded themselves into small clubs and carried on their pursuit to the horror and disgust of their neighbours, using highly dangerous cars which were without brakes and were likely to catch fire; and then gradually, as the motors improved, the clubs became amalgamated until they developed into the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association. The next stage was that the motor car became a means of locomotion for everyone who could afford it.
I believe that flying will go through exactly the same phases. It is beginning to get to the second era now. The best way in which the clubs can now help is for the Royal Aero Club to bring them all together under one head. I believe that small clubs working independently cannot possibly subsist for very long. It would be far better to amalgamate them under one head, so that the member of one club can enjoy the rights of membership at whatever aerodrome he lands. The Government would then be able greatly to reduce the subsidy to the clubs and at the same time remove the restrictions that exist. Indeed the only restrictions imposed by the Government on flying should be similar to those imposed by the Home Office on industry, or such restrictions as existed before the days of the Belisha Beacon. The only restrictions should be those which are consistent with public safety. I suggest, curiously enough, the very thing that the Air Ministry up to the present moment has paid very little attention to, that every new aeroplane constructed should by law be turned out fitted with flaps and slots, landing lights, and wheel brakes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The suggestions of the Noble Lord are outside the Amendment and apparently would require legislation.

Lord APSLEY: To my mind it is highly dangerous that flying clubs should be allowed to use aeroplanes which are not fitted with wheel brakes. A great many accidents occur and are bound to occur because of this very fact. My suggestion
is not for legislation, but that by regulation the Air Ministry should insist that all new aircraft are fitted with these particular brakes. I suggest also that the clubs be amalgamated under the Royal Aero Club, and that steps be taken to remedy the one difficulty which has retarded civil aviation more than anything else—the fact that existing aerodromes, started by the clubs for their own enjoyment, were not planned with any idea of quick access to the centre of any town. Take London for example. The available aerodromes are at Croydon, Gravesend, Gatwick, Hanworth, Heston and Hackney, and there is a new one, I understand, near Brighton. The most accessible of these is Heston, a most flourishing concern which has developed without any subsidy at all. It is unfortunately between road and railway and sufficiently far from both to be of little use. It takes an hour for a private owner without a motor car to get from Heston to London. I frequently fly from my own home to Heston and it takes me an hour from the time I get out of the machine to the time when I enter my house in London.
I urge the Government to consider whether they could not assist the clubs to get landing grounds more accessible to the centres of the towns at which they are situated. I strongly suggest that these landing grounds should be sited near railway lines or tube lines. With the volume of traffic increasing and with the imposition, necessarily, of further restrictions such as traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and a 30-mile an hour speed limit, congestion on the roads will get worse every year and the proper way to transport both air line passengers and private owners of aircraft from aerodromes is by rail or tube. Aerodromes should be actually on the railway or tube lines so that a passenger could walk from the hangar to the railway carriage without getting his feet wet. I believe that at Croydon there is an old railway which runs right to the aerodrome and which has been unused for many years. Would it not be possible to get it working again? There is one site in London which I think would be ideal and which would require no legislation but simply permission to buy the ground, and that is Wormwood Scrubs. It belongs to the London County Council and I am sure a progressive body like that would realise the importance
of having an aerodrome near the centre of London and would give facilities. If legislation were found necessary of course that is another matter.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: We found in the War that there was a great deal of fog at Wormwood Scrubs.

Lord APSLEY: There is a great deal of fog all round London. At the same time, Wormwood Scrubs is not far from Heston and there should not be much more fog there than there is at Heston. Heston has the advantage that you can go into it by keeping straight along the railway and there is hardly ever a fog which is so thick that you cannot follow the railway. Wormwood Scrubs is also on a main line railway which would assist machines coming in and particularly going out because you cannot always rely on the weather reports from the Air Ministry—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the Noble Lord still suggest that he is speaking on the Amendment with regard to aeroplane clubs?

Lord APSLEY: I am afraid that the weather reports have nothing to do with the clubs because most of the clubs were started simply to provide flying facilities round a particular aerodrome or to neighbouring aerodromes and not with the idea of cross country work. However there will no doubt be an opportunity later on in the Debate of raising the question of weather reports. But I would ask the Minister particularly to take note of this question of aerodromes. It is a most important one and any help which can be given by the Ministry the London County Council or the London Passenger Transport Board in the direction of speeding up the means of communication with the aerodromes round London will be much appreciated by the clubs.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: I desire to be associated with the Amendment. I have always had a great admiration for the way in which these clubs have been run. As the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) said, people came together in different areas and formed these clubs with very little knowledge in the first instance of flying. If one goes into the records of the clubs one finds that there has been a wonderfully small percentage
of accidents, particularly fatal accidents, in connection with these clubs which started ab initio with instructors who were not always fully qualified. To-day we have fully qualified instructors in these clubs, and I think we ought to appreciate the work which those instructors and the people in charge of the clubs are doing. It is a very important work and it is filling up a gap in our flying resources which some of us think the Air Ministry itself ought to be filling to a greater degree. One of the difficulties which faces the Air Ministry is that in spite of the subsidy which the Government are paying for the training of pilots and although we train, I think, about 800 pilots a year, the people who allow their licences to fall out are practically equal to the number who come in every year. In other words although we are spending a considerable sum of money we are not really accumulating a reserve of qualified pilots.
The whole idea of the Air Ministry is that we ought to get, year by year, an increasing number of people capable of and well practised in flying. For that reason I ask my right hon. Friend whether the scheme which, I believe, the Council of Light Aeroplane Clubs is putting up to the Air Ministry will be carefully considered. It is a scheme whereby the subsidy is paid on the percentage of hours flown. A man who renews his licence will get for the first 25 hours £1 an hour and between 25 hours and 50 hours, 10 shillings an hour, taking less account of the actual £25 in respect of obtaining a licence and far more of the training of the man after his licence has been taken out by him. I think in that way you would assist to induce a lot of people to renew their licences who to-day allow those licences to expire.
I would also refer to the question of medical examinations. In the Gorell Committee we carefully considered the question of the renewal of "A" licences and I personally think that it has been made too difficult. The renewal of the licence as regards the medical side might be made much simpler. I know that the Government have some new scheme for appointing a doctor in each area but my personal view is that that will make it even more difficult than it is at present. Considering the expense to which young people have to go, ranging from £2 to
£4 an hour, according to the locality, for the purpose of keeping themselves in training I think the Government ought to make it as easy as possible for them to renew their licence both as regards medical and other requirements. I also think that something ought to be done for the provision of more advanced training for those who have got licences. Whether this could be done, by the existing clubs or not is a matter for the Air Ministry. It seems to me that there is a great gap between the man who can just fly a machine and has an "A" licence and the man who can be called upon in time of war to fly a military machine and that gap should be filled up in some way. No doubt the Air Ministry have these matters in mind. A man who today is able to fly a machine of small horse power like a Moth should be capable of being trained to take a long-range bomber up at night in time of emergency. I think some of these young people, without necessarily joining the Auxiliary Air Force but by means of the existing clubs or some analogous organisation, would be willing to learn to fly military types of machines as well as the ordinary civil machines. I believe that in that way we should materially improve the position of those who are, after all, likely to be called upon to assist the Air Force in time of war, and it would be a great advantage to all concerned.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will impress upon the committee which is sitting on aerodrome development the importance of providing suitable facilities for the general public at aerodromes built by light aeroplane clubs and other persons. At similar aerodromes in Germany or any place on the Continent you see large tea and beer gardens and facilities for everybody to watch club members flying on nice Sunday afternoons. That is an enormous advantage in making the general population air-minded. After all, flying is not only for wealthy people. We desire that every person in the country should be air-minded. If it be left to wealthy people the movement will soon die out. It must embrace everybody from the lowest to the highest in the land if we are to be a really air-minded nation. One of the ways in which to do it is to devise facilities at our aerodromes for people to watch club flying or any
other type of flying; and even to go further, and to introduce the subject into the ordinary curriculum of the elementary schools, so that the children can see flying going on and learn what an aeroplane looks like, and what it can do from the point of view both of facilities for fast movement and of the dangers which might arise from the military side.
In these ways we ought to use our aerodromes much more than we do. We can very easily take an example from the large aerodromes on the Continent. I am certain we could popularise club flying and every other kind of flying if we did so. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment annually moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and I hope that the Minister will consider the points I have raised.

9.18 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I think the House will agree that we have had a very interesting discussion on the Amendment which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I congratulate all those who have taken part on the number of subjects, most of them entirely out of order, which they have been able to introduce. I am debarred from replying to them, much as I would like to do. I was much impressed by the wealth of poetical knowledge and detail and the really technical knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton on the subject of gliding. I am ashamed to say that my knowledge of gliding appears to be now of an elementary character. After listening to my hon. Friend's speech, I think that gliding must be almost as technical or even more technical than actually flying an aeroplane. I must also congratulate him—if he wishes to be congratulated on it—on having won the ballot for the second year in succession which enabled him to introduce this subject again. In fact, he was confident that he would win it for the third year, and he wondered what prize he would get if he did. I should be delighted for him to introduce the Estimates. It would be a suitable prize for him. He asked me if there were any means by which we could help light aeroplane clubs with illumination. I said in my speech this afternoon that we are to make a beginning this year with pro-
viding the necessary equipment for night flying at aerodromes all over the country. I have always felt that the difficulties of developing our internal communications, presented to us in this country by short distances, depend for their solution very largely on the possibility of flying by night more than is the case in any other country.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Whiteside) asked me several questions, and I was glad to hear the well-deserved tribute which he paid to Imperial Airways. He has travelled in their machines and is able to speak from experience. It is a refreshing thing to hear somebody who has travelled on these lines take the opportunity of saying in this House what he thinks of the amenities and the attention he received, and of the comfort, safety and regularity of those lines. One of the questions which he put to me was with regard to the scheduling of aerodromes as agricultural land for rating purposes, but that is not a question for the Air Ministry. The fact that aerodromes are not scheduled as agricultural land bears, I know, very hardly on owners of private aerodromes. It is a matter for the local assessment committee, and, if my hon. Friend can persuade the owners of aerodromes to make the local assessor realise how valuable the aerodromes are for pasturing sheep, I am sure that the local assessor will be the first to be convinced and do any scheduling that he desires.
My Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) raised the question of the non-accessibility of aerodromes to speedy means of transport. He mentioned the case of Heston, which is between two arterial roads but far from both of them, and other instances of hardship. That is one of the subjects which we expect to be dealt with in the report which the Aerodromes Advisory Board will give us. One of the many reasons why we want to have this early survey of the country is that all these sites and situations will be looked into from every point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) talked about the number of licences that lapse every year, and he deplores that fact, which I deplore too. It is not easy to see how you can prevent people giving up their licences if
they want to do so. Sometimes it is a question of expense. Very often it is a question of people who, having wanted to learn to fly and having been enthusiastic and keen about it, have then let the pleasure lapse. It is not true to say that pilots with lapsed licences are not useful to the Air Ministry. They are very useful, because what we want to do is to get the greatest number of people to have ab initio training so that in the case of war those who have had "A" licences, even if the licences have lapsed, will be straight away trained on military types of machines, while other people will be brought in and trained ab initio. My hon. Friend's last suggestion, I thought, was the best, namely, that beer should be supplied at all the aerodromes. I do not quite realise whether the Government is supposed to supply the beer or the Air Ministry. I suggest that it should be the First Commissioner of Works as head of the Government Hospitality Fund.
The light aeroplane club movement, originally sponsored by the Air Ministry, I think we can say has been attended by a remarkable measure of success. It has fulfilled one of the principal aims before it, the spread of air-mindedness through the country. It is often suggested that non-commercial flying in this country is very backward. I certainly think there is a great deal of room for further development, but there is no cause for pessimism. In the first place, the number of non-commercial pilots has been multiplied twentyfold since 1925. As I said earlier in the evening, whether on the basis of population or national income, proportionately there are more licences in this country than in the United States, in spite of the many advantages of that great country. A year ago our intention to increase the number of subsidised light aeroplane clubs was announced. At that time 18 clubs were subsidised, but during the last 12 months a number of other clubs have been subsidised, bringing the total up to 33. I hope to see that number raised to 40 very shortly, which would be an increase of 100 per cent.
Members will note that for this purpose there is an increase of from £16,000 in 1934 to £25,000 in the Estimates now before the House. Naturally, clubs vary very much, some being healthier than others, but on the whole the development is very satisfactory. At the end of 1934
the total membership of these clubs was little short of 8,000, with approximately 4,700 flying members. I hope that the total membership will soon be raised to a figure of 9,000. In the light of these figures I think we may maintain that we have made very substantial progress and gone a long way to do what we meant to do originally, to bring flying within the range of the man in the street. There was a suggestion that we should subsidise private owners, but that would not quite meet the case. With only limited funds at our disposal we thought this was the better way. The club movement is essentially democratic and characteristically British, achieving its results by the mutual pooling of all efforts of individuals belonging to it. For those who find the membership of light aeroplane clubs too expensive, we have the new movement of gliding.

Although I am afraid that the progress of gliding has been for a variety of reaasons very slow, I think all those interested were satisfied with the announcement last year that we were going to give £5,000 towards this activity. The several interests concerned in gliding have apparently up to now not seen eye to eye, but I am told that that situation is going to pass and that they are all agreed now on proposals which they will present to us. I hope shortly to be in receipt of those proposals.

Mr. TURTON: In view of the reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 53.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goldie, Noel B.
Martin, Thomas B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greene, William P. C.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Grigg, Sir Edward
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish (Univer'ties)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Borodale, Viscount
Harbord, Arthur
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
North, Edward T.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nunn, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hornby, Frank
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brown, Col. D. C (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newh'y)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pearson, William G.


Burnett, John George
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Jamleson, Douglas
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Kimball, Lawrence
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Radford, E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Sir Alfred
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Craven-Ellis, William
Leckle, J. A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Lees-Jones, John
Reed, Arthur C, (Exeter)


Crooks, J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Remer, John R.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rickards, George William


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ross, Ronald D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dickle, John P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Doran, Edward
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, William
Salt, Edward W.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Wds'wth, Putney).


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Magnay, Thomas
Selley, Harry R.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Summersby, Charles H.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wells, Sydney Richard


Sopar, Richard
Templeton, William P.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Thompson, Sir Luke
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Spens, William Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stevenson, James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Stones, James
Turton, Robert Hugh
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Strauss, Edward A.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Sir Victor Warrender and


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
 Mr. Blindell.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cleary, J. J.
Kirkwood, David
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Stephen Owen
Logan, David Gilbert
West, F. R.


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Original Question put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 33,000 all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

9.40 p.m.

Captain GUEST: The difficulty of a Debate on Estimates, if I may submit it to you for your consideration, Sir Dennis, is that it is almost impossible to separate policy from detail. At the request of Mr. Speaker most of us who have given a good deal of time to this particular subject have deferred to his requests, but it is impossible to avoid a considerable amount of detail. These Votes are submitted to enable hon. Members to raise points of detail and try to get a reply from the Minister, and, therefore, although speakers are strictly limited to the details of Vote A, I hope that a certain amount of latitude will be granted to us if references to general policy are not carried too far. After listening to almost every word of this Debate and bearing in mind the events of last week
I find it impossible not to be thoroughly depressed. I am depressed for two reasons. It seems to me that the House, judging by its discussions to-day, does not seem to appreciate the imminence, or the terrible nearness, of international trouble, and the mere fact that the indictment delivered by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has not yet been replied to leaves me still further depressed. It appears to indicate a complete failure to appreciate that this Vote is too small if the indictment be correct, and if the indictment is wrong then I should have thought it ought to have been replied to at once. That poor little Note that was sent to Germany a few days ago was, I think, unworthy of a great country like Great Britain. Why should we apologise to anybody for what we do? No other country apologises or has apologised in its armament programmes during the last two or three years. Great Britain has set an extraordinary example of unilateral disarmament, and yet the apology we sent in the form of that little Note is answered in the most contemptuous fashion.
In dealing with the Vote in detail I will start with a hope that we may get the problems which have been submitted to the Under-Secretary to-day, and which I know he will represent to his
Department, grappled with with a little more determination than has been shown so far. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the admirable style in which he presented his Estimates. He covered an immense field, and I know how difficult it is to cover it and also to answer a great variety of questions to the satisfaction of everybody, but I hope he will accept from me sincere congratulations on the manner in which he performed his task this evening. I welcome, I cannot do otherwise, this very small instalment of increase in the Air Force. I am not going to say one further word, Sir Dennis, than you have allowed me to say about foreign policy, but before I leave the subject completely I would point out that we are only just about as strong as Germany is to-day—that is just boiling down the few figures with which we have been presented this evening. Instead of being twice as strong we are just about level. It is quite obvious that we must have an agreement with somebody else to meet the possible increase that Germany may undertake in the next few years. The only alliance must be with France. If there is one, why not say so? If there is not one, this Vote is a pathetic presentation. I would like to see an alliance like we had in the Great War 20 years ago. I am quite certain that the population of England would be far happier to be told the truth instead of floating almost rudderless upon this dangerous international sea.
We have been told in the last six months that the strength of the British Air Force would be brought up to parity. Parity is an unstable term on which to found any edifice. The parity of to-day will not be the parity of tomorrow, and the frontiers of to-day will not be the frontiers of to-morrow. Parity and frontiers cannot remain indefinitely the shibboleths of the air policy of Great-Britain. We have either to make definite arrangements with some friendly country to help us to defend ourselves against a possible aggressor, or we have to build an air force that we think is strong enough to take on any other single Power, wherever it may be. I was just thinking of a few illustrations. Since the Estimates were presented last year, Germany has proved that she can
bombard Barcelona. No one would have thought it possible a year ago, but German machines have flown from Berlin to Barcelona in eight hours at a speed of over 200 miles an hour. Equally, Japan, if she liked—everything is "if" in these days—could bombard Singapore from Formosa. Germany has developed extraordinarily rapid speeds for the aerial transport of goods and passengers in the last 12 months. Who is going to say how far that will develop in the next 12 months? If we are clear thinkers we will say to ourselves that the word "parity" means nothing, and that the word "frontier" means rather less. The matter has gone past the stage of those simple, little, accurate calculations.
I would like to say one or two words on the territorial movement of the Royal Air Force, and I dwell upon this particularly because it enlists sympathy and support in all quarters of the House. The territorial defence of one's land cannot offend anyone, and it does not need a militaristic turn of mind to recognise that when the time of trouble comes it is the duty of every man and woman to turn out to defend their land. Asking the Minister to think of the possibility of territorial air defence cannot cause offence in any quarter. A small effort has been made in that direction. We have a limited number of squadrons—I have had the honour of being allowed to command one. A limited number of units of young men give up their time, just like the old yeomanry or the territorial infantry, for a certain number of hours a week for intensive training in barracks, a certain number of week-ends at camp, and once a year at a 10-day camp for exercises. That effort should be encouraged a great deal more than it is—not to place it in the front line of what you may call the regular units; that would be a mistake, as I will prove in a minute, but to encourage its development. There should be far more of them. It Deeds a very small contribution from the State in the way of roping in the air-minded thought and desire on the part of the civilian to play his part if and when he is called upon to do so.
The movement has met with considerable success, and it would meet with even greater success if two thoughts were introduced into the counsels of the
Air Council. The idea at the moment is to make those units into a sort of regiment, as well equipped and as well-fashioned as the ordinary line squadron; in other words, we have tried to teach the young lads who come from, say, the Baltic Exchange, the Stock Exchange or the many banks in London, and to train them as regimental officers. I do not think it is humanly possible to do it. We must recognise once and for all that what we need is a great flying school in each of our cities in which all these young men will be taught to fly at no expense to themselves. The return they give to the Government is that they are prepared, as long as their youth lasts, to undertake a certain reasonable amount of responsibility.
I hope this suggestion will be considered in the light of the experience of some of us who have gone through it. We may in the end achieve the ideal of having machinery and equipment kept by the State to train these young men in regimental responsibility; to give them refresher courses; and to teach all the necessary technical details to keep them useful until the day may come. I do not want to elaborate that, because it is very well known to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to weary the Committee by dwelling too much upon it. One point in connection with it I did not mention: I do not think such young men are very suitable for becoming aerial fighters. They are much more suitable as very intelligent bombing pilots. The mere fact that they are so intelligent—I am speaking of the City of London—indicates a quality of brain which enables them to earn a salary probably representing £400 or £500 a year. Their minds can be trained to understand long-distance navigation, which means reading instruments and passing navigation examinations, and it means considerable study. We need to preserve the qualities they have.
I pass as quickly as I can to Vote 8. A good deal of that has been covered by the discussion which took place on light flying clubs. It is impossible for me to avoid treading on the same ground, but I am going to try to prove that civil aviation is the foundation of all military aerial defence. It was not admitted, in my day at the Ministry, that the civilian was of any use at all. It was not
thought that the civil machine would ever be any use for any military purpose, nor was it admitted that the civil pilot was likely to make a valuable contribution for military purposes. Time has passed, and it has been shown that those thoughts were fallacies. Almost everything that has happened in the last 12 years has proved almost beyond dispute that the rapid convertability of fast passenger machines into active bombers is only a matter of a few hours, and that the navigation of a machine can be equally well undertaken by a civil pilot who is accustomed to flying great distances and carrying passengers, as it can by purely military pilots. If those two assertions of mine are right, the two fallacies to which I have referred must be dropped, and scrapped once and for all. We must realise that civil aviation is the foundation of a military aerial nation, and that the civil pilot, if he is properly developed and taken care of, is most valuable and can make the most important contribution to the national defence.
There is another old fallacy to which I want to refer, and that is the fallacy that civil aviation must be left to fly by itself. I can only compare that by saying that free trade is all right in a free trade world, but if you are in a protectionist world, you must drop free trade and adopt some method of protecting yourselves against competition from abroad. Civil aviation will only fly by itself if nobody else subsidises civil aviation. If hon. Members had the time to compare what other countries have done with their subsidies with what we claim to be our performances, there is hardly a Member of this House who would not find himself forced to admit that subsidies have put us three years behind or, to put it the other way about, that subsidies have put other countries three years ahead. I hear a good deal said about what America can do. I went myself to see, and not long ago I took part in a good many flights made by some of the American transport services. I do not decry our British performances at all, but I want to be honest in my own mind in making a comparison between what has happened over there, where money has been spent, and what is happening very slowly over here, where little or no money has been spent. There is no com-
parison between the two. Others can find out for themselves, as I have done, but to pretend that we are not three years behind in civil aviation is really declining to admit that white is white or that black is black.
Therefore, had we better face up to it? If we admit that civil aviation is the foundation of national air defence, had we not better also admit that the development of civil aviation on its transport side is the way in which to move peacefully along the line of self-defence? In seven years the American subsidy for civil aviation was about £25,000,000, and spread over seven years that is about £3,500,000 a year. Let us see what other countries which are not so rich as America was then have found themselves able to do. France, which could not be said to be particularly wealthy at the present time, has found it possible in the last six years to find £7,500,000 for direct subsidies to civil aviation, while Great Britain has found in the same period £1,900,000. If I am right in saying that they are three years ahead of us, then I am right in saying that that money has been well spent. There will be differences of opinion, no doubt, on that subject, but I want to prove that the convertibility of civil machines is now beyond dispute, and that the use of civil pilots, trained and refreshed and brought up to date, is the most valuable reservoir that we could have to fall back upon; and if I have succeeded in doing that and I can only get into the mind of the Ministry that there is wisdom in spending money on civil aviation, I think I shall have achieved a good deal.
The speech delivered on the subject of light aeroplane clubs was intensely valuable and important. The figures given of "A" licences not renewed are very important, because, to my mind, you have to divide flyers into three classes. You have the private owner who flies for fun, and you have the enthusiastic man who saves up money just to get trained and cannot afford to keep it up. Apart from those two classes, you have the would-be flyer, who cannot afford it at all, or who, if he can afford it, can only afford it in a contribution so small that unless he is assisted by the State, he cannot even get on to the aerodrome. I believe that an effort might be made
to divide England into areas and use the existing flying clubs to attract young men to come along with something like £5 or £10 in their pocket, saved up over a period of weeks or months, and that the Government should say to them, "If you will go through with your course, if you will keep up your renewal and refresher courses for five years, we will see you through, and, in return, you must go on the list for reserve in case we ever want you."
I have worked out a scheme, which I have sent to the Ministry, to which I am sure they will give reasonable consideration, and which, if it is not completely wrong in detail, would at the end of five years give us something like 7,000 "A" licence pilots all still within the five years of their flying life. Some scheme, grasped boldly by the Ministry, or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or whoever may have the last word, would, without offending anyone outside these shores, enable the country not only to be air-minded, but also to have a great reservoir of potential strength in case war ever came.
I want, in conclusion, to put some questions which, I think, the country wants to be asked and to which I think the country wants an answer. The programme of 1923, as the Under-Secretary of State said this afternoon, is not yet complete. Is it not even more important to-day than it was 10 years ago at least to complete that programme? How can it be possible to sit on the Treasury Bench, responsible for the country's safety, and not be able to answer this question? The 41 squadrons which we are going to be given over the next four years would only just come up to the minimum required for security and safety as far back as 1923. I cannot help thinking that intelligent readers must say to themselves either that that was a foolish remark in 1923, or else that it was unnecessary, or that it was said by an irresponsible person. I, for one, and I think there are many others like me, must keep on saying to ourselves that the conditions are at least 12 years worse than they were in 1923. The disturbance of the last week has shown what the position is, and yet we are told that the speed with which the Government is moving in the direction of air armament is sufficiently fast to meet all eventualities. I cannot believe that
that is true, and if I did not think that, I would not get up and say it.
Another question that I would like to ask is whether the Ministry will ever admit the premise with which I started this afternoon, that civil aviation is the foundation of all national air defence. A remark was made in the Naval Debate by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty which immediately struck me as apposite to what we are talking about to-night. He gave an example of what a German converted merchant ship was able to do on the high seas, and I think he said it was able to destroy 41 of our cargo ships. If the mercantile marine can come to the aid of the navy when the day of trouble comes, it must be equally true that the civil side of the air should be available and ready to come to the aid of the military side also. I will not ask again whether they still consider that civil pilots are useless for air defence. I think it is almost admitted that they have shown such skill that there is no doubt that a reserve of civil air pilots is vital to our needs.
The last thing I have to say is this: It has been admitted on all sides that there is leeway to make up. I think it is admitted that in civil aviation we are at least three years behind—I do not say behind every country, but certainly behind the leading countries. In particular, we are behind America, and there is no question of competition with America, except a competition in skill. There is no question of competition in the international sense of the word. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that this is the only way we can take a barometer as to our civil air performances—by using America as the goal we wish to reach. I will not waste the time of the House by describing the excellence of their ground organisation. It may be difficult for hon. Members to believe that 1,500 miles can be flown in a night with aerodromes or landing grounds every 25 miles and beacons every 10 miles. Such a thing has never been conceived in this country, possibly because it is not necessary; but the fact that they have got so far ahead of us proves what I am saying. We have much leeway to make up both on the civil and on the military side. The only way it can be made up on the military side is by a definite agreement
with an Ally who understands how long it will take us to make up our strength, or by going right ahead by ourselves.
The money that is being spent in this country on things far less important than defence takes ones breath away. The wheat farmers have got an indirect subsidy of £6,000,000 from the Treasury, and the beet-sugar producers have got from the same source a subsidy which has run into £4,000,000. If a comparatively small sum, probably one-tenth of what we have given to various industries, had been devoted to the Air Force, we could have had an Air Force which would nearly have fitted into the "real parity" referred to by the Lord President of the Council. I think the result of such strength would have given strength to the European situation, and would probably have helped to make it more peaceful than it is to-day.
I will finish by quoting a few words of the famous Marshal Petain. He is a man not without experience. He was the man about whom Foch said: "If France gets into trouble, send for Petain." Petain was sent for by the French Government, and was Minister of War last year. Only a few weeks ago he was called upon to give an opinion as to whether it was really necessary for France to extend the period of conscription from one year to two, and he gave his opinion with the greatest frankness. He used words which we Englishmen who went through those days—and I am addressing myself more to those who went through that period than to those who never knew it—cannot ignore. They are words which if they are true bring home, in my opinion, that this Debate must not be unreal if it is to be of any use. The 615 men in this House are responsible for 45,000,000 people outside, and if we let them down we shall be very much to blame. Marshal Petain said:
The lack of equilibrium between France and Germany next year threatens to become tragic.
The reference to next year is particularly significant. He knows that we are behind, and he knows that France is running the risk of losing the equilibrium of safety. He went on:
If there is a weak France, then war would only be a question of date.
How much worse would it be if there is a weak England, too?

10.10 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I beg to move,
That a number, not exceeding 31,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service.
This is the first occasion since I have been a Member of this House that I have ever sought to address it on a question arising out of the Service Estimates, and I think the reason for that is not irrelevant to the subject matter of this Debate. I have always felt in the past that there have been, very likely, material and information in the possession of the Government and the Committee of Imperial Defence which were not available to Members of this House, and that this afforded the basis on which the Government were putting forward their proposals. I have felt it difficult to speak, because I thought I should speak in ignorance of relevant facts. That is no longer the case, for the Lord President of the Council, in explaining the White Paper to the House the other day, stated that he justified it on the ground that it told the truth. It follows that we all now know the truth and therefore stand upon an equal footing. At the end of that speech the Lord President went even further, for he said that he believed in telling people the whole facts, so that they might form a judgment wisely, sanely and well. We now, therefore, have the whole facts before us and we are, all of us, equally competent to form a judgment upon this matter. Whether the determination of democracy to which the Lord President appealled would lead to that which he would desire, or whether it would rather, as I hope and believe, lead to that which I and my hon. Friends would desire, is a matter on which he and those on this side may agree to differ. We have been told the truth, so let us refer to the White Paper for the truth. The first statement I find with regard to the Air Force is:
Technical development in the air is taking place very rapidly in respect, for example, of such matters as speed, height, endurance carrying capacity, and potentialities for destruction.
The Under-Secretary to-day, in that crisp, brisk, business-like statement he made—on which I should like to congratulate him—referred in words which I tried to take down to the changes in aircraft building, both military and civil, being very
rapid. Indeed he went so far as to say that those types that were suitable yesterday were not suitable to-day, and that those that were suitable to-day would not be suitable to-morrow. How then does the right hon. Gentleman justify taking the risks of manufacturing machines to-day and increasing the Air Force to-day when upon his admission of the truth in the White Paper—in the statement confirmed by the Under-Secretary to-day—changes are so rapid that the development authorised to-day may to-morrow prove quite useless in actual practice? The business method of dealing with a matter of that kind is to defer until the last moment you can the purchase of your material and the preparation of your resources. The only justification for an immediate increase in the Air Force can be that the Government are in immediate fear. But are they? I do not think they are, and I hope to satisfy the House from the mouth of the Lord President of the Council himself that the Government are not in any such apprehension as to immediate danger. There is very little in this White Paper that tells the truth with regard to the Royal Air Force being capable of defending this nation. It says, indeed, that the principal role of the Royal Air Force is to protect the United Kingdom. That is the only statement it makes with regard to defence; and of course the reason is that air armaments are no defence. Once again I call in aid, as on all these occasions, the Lord President of the Council, for it was only in November, 1932, in referring to the next war, when he spoke of
civilisation being wiped out, as it will be,
and in speaking to the man-in-the-street, he uttered these solemn words:
There is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 632, Vol. 270.]
Those were his words. No wonder, therefore, that in this document of truth there is very little about air armaments being an effective defence. There is only one defence against air armaments, and I would ask the Committee to believe that I am not using the language of claptrap or partisanship, but am saying what I sincerely believe to be true, when I say that the only defence against air arma-
ments is an agreement to abolish them. Suggestions have been made for their abolition in times gone by, but, when the annals of history come to be written, I fear that the record of the British Government in that respect is not one of which we may be as proud as we should wish. After all, the French Government proposed that the right of bombing should be abandoned. The British Government, I regret to have to say—it is a sad thing to have to admit—insisted upon the right to use bombs, for a limited purpose no doubt as the Under-Secretary said today, namely, for police purposes on the outskirts of the Empire. But what a small thing it was that we claimed—a thing of small value, hypothetical, speculative, questionable in every sense of the term; and what a real gain we abandoned—a gain actual, immediate, certain. We have obtained and retained something of which we can scarcely speak without blushing for it; whenever we mention it we have to apologise; and we have abandoned that which would be not merely a safeguard for ourselves but for the world, something of which we might for ever have been proud. It is true that the Foreign Secretary, in the debate last Monday, said that bombing had nothing to do with this question of air armaments. His line was a different one. It was high time, he said, that everyone realised what the difficulty was, because it was a very important one. The difficulty, he said, was civil aviation; that was the problem which remained to be threshed out, and which had to be mastered. It would be perfect folly, he went on to say, to pretend that we should be abolishing the dangers and horrors which might result from military aviation if civil aviation were left untouched.
Let us, for argument's sake, accept that statement of the position. What, then, have the Government been doing to get over the difficulty? Lord Londonderry, the Secretary of State, last year cast aside with scorn the proposal that civil aviation should be controlled. He said he was not prepared to hamper the fullest development of civil aviation in every country for civil and commercial purposes. The Under-Secretary of State at the same time or a few weeks later, said that there were grave objections to internationalising civil aviation, because the removal of
competition would hamper its development. In the Debate to-day the right hon. Gentleman discussed almost light-heartedly, if I may say so without being-thought offensive, the suggestion that the Air Force should be internationalised and put under the League of Nations. He dismissed it almost with a gesture, and yet it is the vital problem which the Government of this country and every Air Minister will have to face—the problem of mastering the air arm and at the same time making adequate international arrangements with regard to civil aviation. Of course there are difficulties. There are formidable objections, no doubt. But the prize to be gained is immeasurable, and I ask the Government to seek it.
Although little is said in the White Paper about defence, it is stated that a strong and powerful air force is a deterrent to a foreign foe. We have been told time and again that an air force cannot intercept and ward off hostile aeroplanes, but that the only defence against air attack is the fear of reprisals. The theory goes that we must have as strong an air force as the potential aggressor, not to ward him off, because that is admittedly impossible, but to take from him an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It seems to me that it is very much like the much debated question of the abolition of capital punishment. The argument goes that hanging does not prevent murders but it acts as a deterrent, and apparently there would be more murders if there were no hangings. That is a very dubious argument. When we hear Government spokesmen admitting that true air defence consists mainly in the apparent influence of a stronger and stronger air force, and that is an argument valid in the mouth of every Government, then it is not only an argument which seems to me dubious but it is an argument which is circuitous. Is a strong air force really a deterrent? I have drawn the attention of the Committee to the statement in the White Paper in Clause 25 that the only deterrent to an armed aggressor is in the possession of adequate means of counterattack. That is the White Paper. But is the whole of the truth in the White Paper, because the Secretary of State for Air takes a different view. On page 4 of the memorandum of the Secretary of State, his view is as follows, and it seems
to be far more in line with the true position:
His Majesty's Government take the view that the conclusion of such a Pact should be of the utmost value in the maintenance of European peace, as affording a powerful deterrent to aggression.
Which is right, the truth proclaimed in the White Paper or the truth proclaimed in the memorandum of the Secretary of State, because they are entirely inconsistent? Is it "J. R. M." on the 1st March, or is it "Londonderry" on the 27th February who makes the statement declaratory of Government policy? Is it a strong Air Force or is it an air pact? We are entitled to an answer to those contradictory statements, both of them appearing in Government documents placed before the Committee for the purpose of this very occasion.

Mr. DORAN: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of a strong Air Force, and—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not interrupt unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman in possession of the Floor gives way.

Mr. DORAN: I beg your pardon, Sir.

Major NATHAN: I have something more to say, and I am anxious not to take up more of the time of the Committee than is necessary. What is it that we have to fear? The Lord President of the Council told us on 28th November:
There is no ground for undue alarm and still less for panic. There is no immediate menace confronting us or anyone at this moment, no actual emergency.
Those were the words of the Lord President of the Council on the 28th November, and he went on to say:
We might easily draw the conclusion that we are not in the front rank in many things pertaining to the air, that the foreigners do things better than we, and that, in fact, we are getting behind all round. That is not the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1934; col. 879, Vol. 295.]
What then have we to fear? It is not France that we have to fear. She is much too preoccupied, and certainly has no fear of any attack by this country. Is it Holland, Belgium, the Scandinavian countries,
the United States? Can it be Russia or even Japan? No, Sir; we fear at this moment attack from the frontier of this country which he told us, is the Rhine. Germany is re-arming. Germany has made her announcement, but it is no surprise to us that Germany is re-arming. That was known when the right hon. Gentleman made his declaration in July last. It was known in still greater detail when he made his statement in November last. That was the reason and the occasion for his making the statement. He invited an explanation from Germany. He expressed the wish that everyone in Germany should read his words, all his words, and among his words were the suggestion that Germany would make clear what in fact she was doing. She has made it clear. We are told as a result that we must have parity. A cross-examination took place between the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the Lord President and the Under-Secretary of State, and I think the Treasury Bench had the better of the Debate. The argument is that we must have parity. What is the position, the statement of the truth upon which British democracy is to form a judgment well, sanely and wisely? I quote again from the Lord President of the Council in his speech of the 28th November. That speech is a brief against these Air Estimates. He said:
Germany can produce the aircraft rapidly, if she chooses, and she can rapidly produce men, if she chooses, but a country which has for years possessed no military air force starts under a very severe handicap, and it must necessarily be some time before, from a military point of view, such a force can be equal in efficiency to a force which would have behind it, ever since the War, the whole of the technique of its training under which men were trained in the War and have been trained ever since.
That was not all that the right hon. Gentleman said on the question of parity. He said:
It is not the case that Germany is rapidly approaching equality with us. …. Even if we confine the comparison to the German air strength and the strength of the Royal Air Force immediately available in Europe, Germany is actively engaged in the production of service aircraft, but her real strength is not 50 per cent. of our strength in Europe to-day. As for the position this time next year, if she continues to execute her air programme without acceleration and if we continue to carry out at the present approved rate …. we estimate that we shall still have
in Europe a margin—in Europe alone—of nearly 50 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1934; cols. 880–82, Vol. 295.]
It is true that the Under-Secretary of State has to-day made some slight modification of that statement. He states that at the end of the year we shall still have a superiority over the Germans.

Mr. DORAN: Quite right.

Major NATHAN: I have the approval of the hon. Member opposite, who is a supporter of the Government. We shall still have superiority. Why then this cry for parity? The right hon. the Lord President said further that we must have a force as strong as the strongest force within striking distance. On his own statement and on the statement of the representative of the Air Ministry we have not only parity now, but we shall have more than parity at the end of the present calendar year. The truth of the matter is that the Government have abandoned the whole post-war conception of the collective peace system and have gone back to the old balance of power. Yet the safety of not only this nation but of the nations of the world depends upon the adoption of a system of pooled security. Parity is the antithesis of pooled security. The Government are acting as if pooled security were an impossibility and as if there were no League of Nations.
I would ask the Government why they choose this particular moment for presenting these increased Estimates? Has not the situation improved since the proposals were first made by the right hon. Gentleman in July of last year? The Saar plebiscite has removed outstanding difficulties between France and Germany, and within the last few days Germany has made a declaration of conscription on the one hand but, on the other, a declaration of her interest and desire that an opportunity should be made to discuss and negotiate a peace, and that she was anxious for the honour of being a guarantor of that peace. That was a great advance. As I understand, the reply of the German Government to the Note of the British Government is that she is anxious to discuss with the British Government the very matters which arise out of the Anglo-French conversations and the Note of the 3rd of February.
Why at the moment, when these conversations are about to begin in Berlin, should the Government choose to bring forward these increased Estimates? Would it not have been better to have awaited the result of the visits of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal to Berlin, Moscow and Warsaw? Would it not have been better diplomacy to have secured, or tried to have secured, even if you fail, the four cardinal points of European peace. First, a Western European pact, secondly, an Eastern European pact, thirdly, a Central European pact and, fourthly, an arms convention. Would it not have been desirable to have made that attempt before coming forward with this increased Estimate. What is the hurry? Do the Government seriously consider that there is an immediate fear of a sudden air attack by Germany in the west against France and against this country, in both of which cases we are involved. If the Government are afraid of that; let them say so frankly and we shall know how to meet the situation, but if not then I say that the tactics and diplomacy of the Government are unintelligible and extraordinarily unskilful. Let them tell the House frankly what is their information. The Prime Minister, whom I do not quote often with approval but I do on this occasion, once said that increased armaments never yet made for peace. Do they make for peace now? Do they in the air, where we are most vulnerable and where we are more closely linked to the continent than ever before? In the Memorandum attached to the Estimates the Secretary of State for Air refers to the desirability of arrangements:
which will facilitate an early limitation of the air forces of the world by general international agreement.
Do the Government really think that these increased Air Estimates, brought forward in the circumstances of the moment, are apt to facilitate an early limitation of the air forces of the world by general international agreement? We are at one in seeking that objective, but we fear that the Government may have degraded the opportunity.

10.35 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I do not wish to follow the extraordinary speech just made by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East
Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), but I would like to say that perhaps no speech ever made in this House has been more misconstrued than that made by the Lord President, which was quoted by the hon. and gallant Member, or rather misquoted by him, when he said that there was no defence against air attack. What the Lord President said was that some machines would always get through. That is a very different thing from there being no defence whatsoever. If there were no defence all machines would get through and that would leave us in a position very different from that which the hon. Member tried to make out that the Lord President had depicted for this country. The hon. Member asked, Which was the truth? Were we to rely on a strong Air Force or on pacts? Neither contradicts the other in the least. If you are to rely on pacts you must have a certain strength of Air Force, or no one will think it worth while to make a pact with you.
Further than that I will not follow the hon. Member. I do not wish to touch on military aviation, but I would like to say, in passing, that I do not believe that what matters most is the number of the machines you possess. What matters is the efficiency of such machines as you possess, and, most important of all perhaps, your capacity for the mass production of these machines in time of war. At present we have no machine which unskilled labour is capable of producing in large numbers in time of war, and that is the question which has to be faced and conquered by this country. Otherwise the money spent on military aviation will always be largely wasted.
I would like for a few moments to touch on the experimental services, the Vote for which I notice has been increased by £16,000. I am very delighted that this service has received this extra money, but I greatly deplore the fact that part of it has been voted to the extraordinary service, I do not know whether to call it a grant proper or a kangaroo service, which is to allow Imperial Airways to have one aeroplane rising from another aeroplane. That would have been a very laudable attempt 10 years ago, but to-day I consider it both dangerous and entirely out of date. I was not in the least surprised, therefore, that it has the whole-hearted sup-
port of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).

Mr. MANDER: I was associating myself with the Government.

Mrs. TATE: The hon. Member cannot expect me to appreciate the very few occasions on which he honours the Government with his support. I would like to refer briefly to private flying. I believe that the development of private flying is of immeasurable importance. It gives work to our aircraft factories, which badly need it; and it is private flying which is going to give us our potential reserve of pilots in time of war. Many people hold that that reserve of pilots will come from commercial aviation. I do not agree with them. I believe it is the private flier who will form our reserve. A certain amount has already been done to encourage private flying. The Under-Secretary to-day spoke of the satisfactory position of private flying, and said that we had a larger number of private licences in this country, in proportion, than were held in the United States of America. It has been the fashionable thing this afternoon to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his speech. As a brilliant speech and as a soporific it was a very fine performance indeed. Personally, I considered that it was a wonderful misrepresentation of fact. I really believed after hearing that speech that my right hon. Friend has missed his vocation and that he ought to have been a contortionist or an illusionist. I think that the use which he made of the report of the Federal Aviation Commission of America was most extraordinary. He quoted just those passages which suited him and he did not hesitate to leave out even from those passages the bits that were not to his purpose. I have a copy of that report in my hand and it happens to be a report which I know extremely well.
With regard to private licences, I do not think it matters how many private licences are taken out. What matters is the efficiency of the private fliers. This report tells us that it is estimated that in America there are at least 2,500 aircraft in genuine private use. That means that there are 2,500 genuine owners of private aircraft and that, I think, is a figure of substantial importance. The owner of a private aeroplane is a man who is in constant practice and is keeping his licence
really up to date and is probably a very skilled flier. While we are on the subject of private licences, I must refer to the fact that, although, in 1933, 977 "A" licences were taken out, 763 lapsed in that year. There are different views as to why these private "A" licences lapsed, I think that what has been done to encourage flying by making "A" licences easier has not always been to the advantage of the continuance of the "A" licence.
We have for instance provided that an "A" licence shall be granted for three hours solo flying. I would like to press that that figure should be raised to 25 hours. I believe that one deterrent to the continuance of private licences to-day is the fact that a man or woman who has learned to fly and has got a licence, after three hours solo flying, has just reached the stage at which he or she can fly round the home aerodrome but is afraid to go any further. The holder of the "A" licence in those circumstances has simply begun to realise his own abysmal ignorance and that is a deterrent to going any further. I also believe that it should be an imperative condition of every "A" licence that the holder should undergo a course of navigational instruction. In connection with all schools of flying which receive Government grants it should be a condition of the grant that a certain course in navigation is insisted upon before an "A" licence is granted. A knowledge of navigation is almost as important as a knowledge of how to control the machine.
I should also like to say, while on the subject of private flying, that I would be very glad if we could have in this country a standardised medical test for "A" licence holders. I am not pressing either for a more severe test or a more lenient test but simply for a standardised test. At present, any medical practitioner can pass a man or woman for an "A" licence. Their standards naturally vary and very often undue pressure is brought to bear upon them. They very often have no knowledge whatever of what is really necessary medically for the air, and very often have not the necessary apparatus with which to carry out the test if they had the knowledge. It would be an enormous advantage if there were a certain number of doctors set apart as air
physicians who were qualified to pass people for "A" licences and to give the medical certificate. I press that very strongly.
I would like to turn to commercial aviation. I notice that there is an increase of £59,000 on the whole of civil aviation. I do not believe that mere expenditure of money is of any value whatever. What matters is what we are getting in turn for that money. Therefore, I cannot join in congratulating my right hon. Friend simply because there is an increase in expenditure. I very much deplore the fact that, because aviation was given a tremendous impetus by the War, we almost invariably connect aviation with military service. In aviation man was given the greatest power that has ever been bestowed upon him towards peace and an increase in trade. I regard aviation as the greatest potential power for peace that mankind has been or ever can be given. The idea that aviation is mainly militaristic underlies a large proportion of the speeches that we hear in the House and the articles that appear in the Press. I believe that to be a very great tragedy for aviation and the world. With regard to our present commercial services—and when you speak of the commercial services of this country you can only speak of Imperial Airways—it is because I believe they cannot extend our trade interest in comparison with the services of other countries that I wish to criticise them. I know that my right hon. Friend will realise that those of us who criticise the Estimates do so from a genuine love of flying and a belief in aviation, and not from any desire merely to criticise. As the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) pointed out, the speeds of our machines are too slow. I will not give again the quotations he made from the report of the Federal Aviation Committee. I do not believe that we can afford to go on being as slow as we are. One of the grounds on which we always excuse our extraordinarily low speed is that of safety, but, as the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey pointed out, we have not as high a safety record as the United States. He also quoted figures to prove that fact.
It has always been said that we provide a safer and more comfortable service
than anyone else in the world. Of course that is a statement that the English people love to swallow wholesale, because there is nothing that the English nation loves to be told so much than that everything they do and possess is the best in the world. I have a large percentage of Scottish and Irish blood mixed with my English blood, and I prefer to see things as they are, and to examine with the greatest care the extraordinary statements that the English are so fond of making. I do not consider Imperial Airways comfortable at all, and they certainly are not the safest in the world, although they offer a very high degree of safety. We have heard lately that new machines are under order for Imperial Airways which will carry 58 passengers at a cruising speed of 150 miles an hour. The larger and faster the machine the more perfect the ground organisation must be. These machines are not to be ready for two years. Shall we in two years' time have a ground organisation for such machines? If so, where is the money to come from? The sum allotted to ground organisation in the Estimates to-day is not adequate for the purpose. The Federal Aviation Commission have said that the expense of laying down ground organisation in the United States was between £40 and £100 per mile of the aviation route. I venture to say without fear of contradiction that if that is the cost in a civilised country like the United States, the cost for the Empire airways over countries in many parts not civilised with extremely difficult climatic conditions will probably be greater. I ask, again, where is the money coming from? My right hon. Friend in the course of his speech made a most remarkable statement with regard to the expansion of our routes. He said that, of course, they would not be expanded for some years, but after all years have a habit of going by very quickly. I imagine that what the right hon. Gentleman insinuated was that the years go by quickly for Britain and stand still for other countries. I think that is unduly optimistic. I believe if we are going to have air routes we ought to have radio beacons, floodlit aerodromes, and that every machine ought to be fitted with an automatic pilot. We have at present, I believe, the best pilots in the world, and
yet we expect them to pilot their machines with the most extraordinarily primitive apparatus. It is not sufficiently realised to-day how very rapidly the air routes of the world are falling into the hands of foreigners. For some years the United States has run the Pan American services with no harm to any fare-paying passenger since 1929, when they were inaugurated on a route round South America. The French and the Germans also have routes to these countries. Let us not forget that we are allowing other countries to get ahead of us with services to South America where we have no less than £400,000,000 invested. The Pan American Airways were disappointed in not starting the Trans-Atlantic service, for which hangars have been constructed at Long Island in New York. Instead, they propose to run a Trans-Pacific service to China via Honolulu and a ship will be leaving shortly on that mission. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the tremendous effect this will have psychologically on the minds of foreigners, when they see these efficient foreign air lines in their country. The French and the Belgians have run services right across India. Once we lose command of an air route it will be very costly to recapture. I do not believe that any land service is a perfect service to the Empire, for it can always be interrupted in time of war.
I have pointed out the enormous difficulties, but we have got to have rapid communication with our Empire, and I ask how it can be done. I believe the Empire air services should be run coastwise with seaplanes. These services could be run in conjunction with shipping companies who could still retain an interest in the mail contracts and passengers who desire speed. To-day British shipping, which is one of our national industries, has been dealt a terrible blow, and aviation, if we are not careful, is going to deal a still greater blow to British shipping. In the past we have been the carrying nation of the world and we cannot afford to lose that position. I would like to quote that well known saying about Great Britain: "Take away her merchant fleets, take away the Navy that guards them: her Empire will come to an end and Britain will become once more an insignificant island on the North
Sea." It is only by running a seaplane service in connection with shipping companies that we shall be able to continue as the carrying nation of the world and to save British shipping from its death blow. Our ports and harbours lie all over the world. Our Empire has the longest coastline, and we have the finest sea routes, coastal light services and radio services in the world, and radio communications can always be obtained by ships at sea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I have waited all day to deliver this speech and studied aviation for years, and I intend to make my speech whether hon. Members talk or whether they do not.
If the sea routes throughout the Empire are examined it will be seen that there is no passage from port to port which is too far for the best modern seaplane to traverse with ease with a full load. The saving in fuel costs will be tremendous. Oil tankers could take supplies direct to the seaplane bases. The Diesel engine, too, has arrived, and by its use of cheap oil would enormously reduce the cost of the seaplane services. Such services could become a profitable venture without any Government subsidy whatever, except a just payment given for mails carried. But there is no British seaplane in existence to-day and no British seaplane which could be produced within two years from this date which is capable of performing the service which I have described. There is, I know, a large section of people in this country who believe that the one patriotic thing is to say, "Buy British under all circumstances whether British is best or whether it is not." I give place to no man or no women in my love for my country, but I think it is a far greater form of patriotism to say, "Give this country adequate tariffs, and after that nothing but the best is good enough for Britain." The best seaplanes to-day are not found in this country. [Interruption.] They are not constructed in this country, and the hon. Member's interruption was completely unworthy of any Member of this House.
In order to run a service such as I have described it would be necessary to buy the rights of the best seaplanes manufactured in America and have them constructed in our own British yards. We have the finest aluminium alloys and the finest light steels in the world, and we
could give employment to thousands and, incidentally, save this country millions of pounds. We have been, I believe, and still are, deplorably lacking in technical advisers in the construction of aircraft. It is not for me to attribute the blame, but I say we ought to take advantage of what other nations who have spent large sums of money on constructing aircraft have learned. Let us construct those best ships. We should save our shipping industry, and should have an Empire service which no war could interrupt and which would cost but a fragment of the subsidy that we give already in respect of beet sugar and to that extraordinary and peculiar idea, that enormous Cunarder, We would also render a service to British trade for which future generations would thank us for ever.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. DORAN: I cannot refrain from a little reply to the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). One of his main points was that the National Government had pleaded for the entire abolition of air armaments. On behalf of those colleagues with whom I have the honour to be acquainted, I say to him: We are prepared to see the entire abolition of air armaments, provided that your foreign friends will follow our good example. I am willing to put my gun to one side when I am assured that your gun is well out of the way, but I would become a Member of the Opposition if I were foolish enough to destroy my gun and leave the other fellow to keep possession of his. I have tried to follow hon. Members' wonderful reasoning to-night and I have noticed that they have referred to other countries. It is always the old, old story, rightly or wrongly. [Interruption.] They are always wonderfully fond of referring to other countries, but it has never yet dawned upon their simple imaginations that the responsibility of Great Britain is five times more than any other country in creation. It has never come to their knowledge that we have got control of livelihoods. [Interruption.] I will put those people just exactly where I want them. So long as hon. Members want peace, the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran) is going to show you how to get it. When these little narrow-minded
Englanders, with their warped ideas of Imperial destiny and defence, endeavour to compare this Great Britain of ours with the insignificant countries of the world, I wonder where they have received their political education. Whether I am right or wrong, I look upon these tight little islands of the Northern seas as the one great depository of the principle of liberty and freedom on which the welfare of the world depends. To-day I have listened very patiently to the usual pacifist piety from the other side, and I have not heard one word uttered against any other country except our own. I suppose, because they belong to it, they look upon it as the easiest means of attack. I suppose because you are allowed to be part of it, you take advantage of the hospitality granted you. I suppose, because you can in name turn round and say you are British, you are entitled—

Mr. MANDER: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in addressing you, Captain Bourne, in language of this kind?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I understood the hon. Member was saying that I was a member of the British race. I believe I am.

Mr. DORAN: In making that remark, Captain Bourne, I intended to convey to you a compliment, because to be a member of the British race to-day, believe me, is 100 per cent. guarantee of honesty and decency in the world, and if I addressed that remark to you, it was a complimentary remark. I meant to say that those who assumed the honour I tried to bestow upon you and who outraged that principle of hospitality that we had granted to them, were the last people in the world who should bite the hand that fed them, and they ought to be the last in the world to cast a stigma on the only country in the world that gives them sanctuary. I am not going to waste my time on the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), only when he tells me and the House that we, the British people, shall give to the League of Nations the control of the British Empire, I say that there is something in our Imperialism, there is something in
our way of interpreting the principle of liberty, which the rest of the world has not quite been able to grasp. It has been liberty that has made the British Empire, and it is liberty that is binding it together to-day, and if you think for one minute that we on this side are going to relinquish 485,000,000 people, one-fifth of the habitable globe, four-fifths of the world's population—of every language and every race, of every colour and aspiration—and leave them to a committee of polyglot foreigners, you make a devilish bad mistake.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks are quite interesting, but I still fail to relate them to the Air Estimates.

Mr. DORAN: I have heard remarks this afternoon in connection with the Vote. The Amendment is for the reduction of 2,000 men in the Air Force. In other words, it implies: Let us reduce, and reduce and reduce. Let us so subordinate ourselves that the other nations of the world will follow our example. I am going to quote the annual conference report of the Labour party, represented by those paragons of excellence who sit opposite to me. This is what the chairman said in opening the Southport conference of 1934:
It is more than ten years since the Italian people became the first victims of Fascist dictatorship. Recollection of the cruelty and brutality by which that bondage was established has become dim with the passage of time. It required only the unleashing of Nazi ferocity in Germany to reopen the eyes of the world to the growing peril of this sinister system of political, economic and intellectual slavery.
That is what their chairman said. I give another example:
Fascism and Nazism represents the most aggressive form of military nationalism. Mussolini has bluntly declared that war is for the man what children are to the woman, and in a speech at the end of the recent Italian manoeuvres he asserted 'We must not prepare for a war to-morrow but for a war to-day.'
This is where I am going to speak very straight to-night. There is an old saying in Ireland—and I am very proud to be a son of that country though born in England, of which I am equally proud. That saying is, that no matter how many singing lessons you give to a pig, all you get out of it is a grunt. We on this side have been gentlemen. We have tried to keep peace; we have tried to use the
ordinary methods of courtesy and the ordinary terms of dignity; but they have been lost upon you, and now the time has come for us to tell you where to get off. This is what I am going to tell you; whether you like it or not makes not the slightest difference to me. You have insulted every nation in the world. You have insulted Italy; you have insulted Germany; you have insulted America; you have insulted France; and, in your blind, low-down, uncouth fanaticism against capitalism, you have never had the brains to understand what you really mean when you speak. After insulting all the nations in the world, the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Opposition makes the declaration that the National Government has failed, that Labour is coming into office next time, that he is going to be the Prime Minister—God forbid, but we all know that funny things come up after a shower. You have told the world—I am serious in saying this—that Labour is going to take charge of the next Government. Your own report contains the most diabolical insults against Fascism and Nazi-ism, but the most remarkable thing in all that business is that not one word is said about Bolshevism in Russia. I would like to know the names of your paymasters—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I still cannot see what connection the hon. Member's speech has with the Air Estimates.

Mr. DORAN: I again apologise to you, Captain Bourne. I may, in my enthusiasm, have gone beyond the bounds, and I make the necessary apologies to the Chair. I come down to the air—and I will say this: I joined the Army in 1914, and I am old enough to remember the scenes in London when the Zeppelins came over. I am also old enough to remember that my friends on the other side ran like sewer-rats into the Underground, to shelter themselves from the Zeppelins. The very people who to-night are voting for a reduction in the Air Force were the first people to screech out and demand to know where our airmen were. If they were in a foreign country they would be the first to screech out for the Army and the Navy to protect their miserable bodies. There is another time coming, and it will not be long. I have heard iniquitous humbug from that side of the House. I have heard all this talk about those in foreign countries
being such wonderful people, but I have not heard one of you say a good word for the country that gives you sustenance. Whatever happens in the world today, blame it on to Britain. If anything goes wrong in the East, it is our fault. If anything goes wrong in the West, call up his Majesty's Government to explain. Every other country in the world is a paragon of excellence. I am going to say this whether you like it or not. You have spent your lives in creating class war, hatred, enmity, malice, spite and uncharitableness. You have preached friendliness to the foreigner while you have carried on warfare at home. You have undermined the vitality of youth and you have disturbed the equilibrium of decent living men in this country by means of strikes and lock-outs.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What has this to do with the Air Estimates?

Mr. DORAN: My words, in conclusion, are a quotation from the famous Irish poet Thomas Moore, who in 1796 had to face what we have to face to-night. His words were these:
Unprized are her sons till they learn to betray,
Undistinguished they Jive, if they shame not their sires;
And the torch that would light them, through dignity's way;
Is snatched from the pile when their country expires.
And you on that side hope to gain an unenviable reputation by betraying Great Britain and the public of the British Empire.

11.25 p.m.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: After the spell-binding speech to which we have just listened, I am afraid that I must draw away from the general trend of the discussion. I am afraid that my remarks will not be as exciting as those to which we have just listened, but I hope they will be none the less important. My right hon. Friend in introducing the Estimates made a speech which I found most interesting. It was a feat of memory which made me dizzy. I know a great many people who have great difficulty in remembering their own telephone number, let alone a speech of over an hour's duration. My right hon. Friend said—I hope that I am not misquoting him—that we have great scope for an
expansion of Imperial Services and that there is a good chance of this expansion continuing. I welcome such an expression coming from the Government, as it shows that they fully realise that constant improvement and speeding up of Imperial Communications is enormously to the advantage of a wide-spread Empire. Such an improvement is calculated to bring us closer and to bind us closer than anything else could possibly do. One lesson for this generation is that our Empire, which has been founded on the Sea, must of necessity now be consolidated from the air. This century has produced very few proverbs, but there is a new proverb that is pertinent to this particular Vote, and that is that travel breeds travel.
A resolute policy of the Government in encouraging our Imperial air communications may do more than reap an Imperial reward. I think it is likely within a measurable time to prove so commercially successful that I would ask my right hon. Friend—I do not see him in his place, but no doubt my remarks will be conveyed to him—to leave in his calculations and preparations a definite top margin of expansion in the direction of Imperial communications, so that he should not find himself in a position of being positively embarrassed by too much success. That is a state of affairs which might very easily occur. I should like to give a few figures to prove my statement. The latest figures which are available to me show that Imperial Airways at the moment carry 85 tons of air mail per year to Empire destinations. The total air mail to be carried when all first class air mail is put into the air under the projected Empire air transport scheme is 2,700 tons a year. I ask hon. Members to note the difference between this 2,700 tons air mail, the objective air mail of the future and the 85 tons which are being carried at the moment. When this air mail of 2,700 tons does arrive it will, by itself, necessitate Imperial Airways increasing their fleet from the present number of 36 machines to a number certainly not less than 100, and the Minister and the Ministry know better than I do that it takes at least two years to train a satisfactory first class commercial pilot. To train the pilots necessary for such an
increased fleet it is necessary that a start should be made immediately, and on a scale infinitely larger than anything which has been contemplated up to date.
That is not all. These figures rest upon the assumption that traffic other than air mails is likely to stand still. I do not think that we can make such an assumption. I believe that with the encouragement of a wide and constructive Government policy expansion will be continuous and rapid. There is little doubt that where the calculations made have indicated that we should increase our Imperial air strength to over 100 machines the expansion in the future will in all probability show that we shall need at least 200 machines. I do not say that the Minister is unmindful of these considerations, but the steps taken by the Government to inaugurate new policies in connection with new means of transport are necessarily tentative and sometimes hesitant, but after a few years of encouragement this particular aspect of air transport tends, once the chrysalis stage has been passed, to develop very quickly, in fact with giant strides. There are one or two other points which I should liked to have touched upon, but I am banking on the hope that in confining myself to what I consider to be one sound point with the resultant short speech I shall be doing something more calculated to bear fruit than anything else.

11.35 p.m.

Sir M. SUETER: I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mrs. Tate) on her well-informed speech. She spoke under great difficulty, but she showed that she was master of a subject which she has studied for so many years. I should like also to congratulate the Under-Secretary upon the way in which he presented this year's Estimates. He is a practical flyer. He has lately returned from a long trip to the Far East and I feel certain that the experience he gained on that trip will be of great value to the Air Ministry in dealing with aerodromes on our great air routes. When we debated the White Paper on Defence last week I said that I thought the money taken for the Air Estimates was far too little. A sum of £124,000,000 is voted for defence and the Air service gets
only one-sixth of it. Even though extra money is voted for defence, we find that the Air comes last; the older services take most of the money and the Air service gets very little indeed.
We have heard a great deal to-day about what Germany is doing. We have had figures bandied about by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and we have been told what the Lord President said last November about the strength of Germany. I always thought that the Lord President under-estimated the figures of Germany. I feel certain that if the Under-Secretary would study what was said in the French Chamber about the strength of Germany's Air Force he would not have given us the figures that he has given to-day. Germany is re-arming in the Air. She is determined to be a first-class Air power. We are told that she has now something like 7,000 pilots, an enormous number of trained men, and they are to be put into uniform shortly. But it is not the number of aeroplanes that counts. What counts is the productive capacity of a nation. Germany can turn her industries on to producing machines very fast indeed—almost as fast as she did in the Great War. That is what really counts.
In the War we found the greatest difficulty in providing personnel and engines. We were told this afternoon that one German firm alone is turning out 50 engines a week. What are they doing with those engines? They must be putting them into machines. That is why I say that the Lord President's figures were too low. As we are such a vulnerable nation we ought to provide for more money for the Air Service. We are the most vulnerable nation of any, and yet we are only the fifth Power in the Air.
I want to say a few words about research. We have heard a great deal to-day about what America has been doing. But we must remember that during the War we gave America the results of all the technical research work that we had obtained in this country through our scientists, and we also gave them our best machines, and that after the War, while we had to economise America put a great deal of money into aviation services. Their laboratories had all the money required,
and the Americans certainly turned out some very fine machines indeed. The Douglas and other machines, with their all-stream-line form, the retractable under-carriage and variable pitch propellors and so on, were all obtained by patient research work. In this country we have just as good firms for producing aeroplanes, as was shown by the way the Comet machine was built. It took only eleven months to build, and, as everyone knows, it won the race from England to Australia.
What I find some difficulty in understanding is this: We have a lot of scientists working at Farnborough. Do they give the right advice to our technical people? Our technical people at the Air Ministry have to place the orders for machines. We have all these gentlemen working, but I doubt if they give the best advice. I am glad to hear from the Under-Secretary that the Ministry are going to overhaul their research services. I have criticised Farnborough for years and years and I have been laughed at by the Under-Secretary for doing so. I do not think that if he were in his place now he would laugh at me, because apparently it has got to such a state that it has been found necessary, as I say, to overhaul these research services. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether we are getting the right type of scientific help in connection with this new industry, whether the emoluments offered are enough to attract the best brains of the universities to this work, and whether, when an invention is produced, the inventor gets any reward. In America a man who produces an invention gets a very high reward in money. I think that our scientists want some incentive and that they can do really good work. I do not see why we should always have to follow America in air developments. When the Prime Minister was good enough to meet the Air Committee, I told him that we wanted to lead and not always to be last. I hope the Under-Secretary will look into this question. Research work is so important that you cannot really put too much money into it. Everything depends upon it. We want to get the best brains of the country to work for our aviation services.
I am very disappointed that more money has not been given for civil aviation. The Under-Secretary paid a great compliment to the Postmaster-General for his foresight in adopting a progressive policy as to carrying first-class mail matter by air whenever it accelerates delivery to do so. But it is no use for the Postmaster-General to encourage civil aviation, as he is doing, if our aerodromes are not more up-to-date, not only the great air routes but also internally. We should have an aerodrome to the north of London for dealing with the services from the north and it is also necessary to reduce the time involved in getting from London to Croydon. At present it takes three-quarters of an hour. With a modern machine you could fly from Liverpool to London in that time. It is perfectly impossible that such a state of things should be allowed to last and I think the Under-Secretary ought to set up a committee to go into the whole question of speeding up communications between the centres of our large towns and the aerodromes and also to examine the proposals made for an aerodrome in London. We must have more efficiency in that respect. I am glad to see the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place. Last year, in introducing the Navy Estimates he paid a great tribute to the Fleet Air Arm and said it was the spear-head of the Navy. As an old naval air pioneer I was glad to hear that because the Admiralty did not always think along those lines. This year again a great compliment was paid by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the air arm, when he said:
But of course the finest example that we see of co-operation between the Navy and the Air Force is in our aircraft carriers, and it is a real pleasure to see these craft at work, combining the many allied problems of the sea and the air. Not less is it a pleasure to see the young officers of both Services working together in great friendship and harmony because future development between these two Services must depend on these young officers of both who in time I hope will come to occupy high positions in their respective Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14 March, 1935. Col. 597, Vol. 299.]
Many of the Air Committee went to Weymouth and went on board H.M.S. "Courageous" and saw these young officers being catapulted off the deck of
the aeroplane carrier. It was a wonderful sight to see the way in which they were catapulted off and came back and landed on the carrier within six inches of a line down the centre. I found the Admiral, Sir Alexander Ramsay, taking a great interest in the airmen and doing everything he could to encourage them. That was very different from the old days when I was in the Royal Naval Air Service—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a matter which arises on the Navy Estimates.

Sir M. SUETER: I am trying to show how efficient the aircraft carriers and the young pilots are—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may be the case, but this is not the occasion on which to do it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: This is Air Force personnel who fly off the ships.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Air Force carrier is borne on the Navy Vote.

Sir M. SUETER: With due respect to you, Captain Bourne, on board this carrier there are Royal Air Force men and officers in addition to naval officers, and the whole point I am making is that the Royal Air Force officers and men work with the naval officers and men. They come on this Vote. I was trying to point out how well they work together, and the First Lord bore that out on the Navy Estimates. Then, again, we have the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) coming to this House fresh from the sea, and he says he wants to break up the Royal Air Force—

ADMIRAL of the FLEET (Sir Roger Keyes): I never said anything of the sort.

Sir M. SUETER: He wants to break it up and go back to the Royal Naval Air Service; and, if that were done, the Army would presumably want their air service again. We should then have three air services—the Navy, the Army, and the independent air force. When I was running the Royal Naval Air Service we had the greatest friction with the military aid service. We had two lots of inspectors competing for the same engines and the same materials, and we had competition for personnel, and so on. There
was tremendous friction between the two-Services. The gallant Admiral now wants to have three services and to increase that friction.

Sir R. KEYES: I never said anything of the sort. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) asked me whether I would do away with the Royal Air Force. I said I would not do away with it, but I suggested that it should havé less to do with interfering with the domestic arrangements of the Admiralty.

Sir M. SUETER: That is precisely what I was saying. The hon. and gallant Member wants to do away with the Air Force as it is now constituted and approved by Parliament and let the Navy have back their small air force. Then the Army would want theirs back. We had the greatest friction when there were two air services, and, if we have three, there will be greater friction still. A separate air service has been approved by Parliament, and I am certain that hon. Members will support me in fighting tooth and nail against splitting it up. When the Admiralty did have their air service, they did not know how to use it, and they threw it overboard. The gallant Admiral also made an extraordinary statement in his speech on the White Paper. He was talking about me, and he said:
My hon. and gallant Friend deserves great credit for organising our first Naval Air Service, but since then he has been rather out of date. There have been great developments, and I assure him that the battleship to-day has nothing more to fear from aircraft than from the torpedoes of submarines or destroyers or the guns of its like."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March; col. 138, Vol. 299.]
This Admiral of the Fleet comes to this House and says battleships have nothing to fear from the air or torpedoes. I pointed out in my speech the other day that the "Marlborough" was hit in the Battle of Jutland and turned into a lame duck, so that Lord Jellicoe had to send her into port. When you have bombs from the air they must do a certain amount of damage, as was shown in America. I have in my hand pictures of the experiment of the bombing of a German battleship. At 12.37 it started to make a plunge, at 12.38 it was lying on the port side, at 12.39 it was taking the final plunge, and at 12.39¾ it was
totally submerged. And yet the gallant Admiral said bombs do not hurt battleships.

Sir R. KEYES: That was a hulk with no anti-aircraft guns.

Sir M. SUETER: But what the hon. and gallant Member said was that battleships had nothing to fear from bombs; yet that ship seemed to turn turtle in 2¾ seconds. The United States battleship "Virginia" was hit by a 1,100-lb. bomb and was totally wrecked 48 seconds after being hit. The "New Jersey" was also struck by a 1,100-lb. bomb and promptly turned turtle. Yet we are told that bombs do not hurt battleships. I leave it to the House to judge whether a bomb dropped in the vicinity of a ship's propellers would not put it out of action. The hon. and gallant Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell) said it would not require an explosive charge to reduce speed. When commanding the "Tiger" during submarine practice and torpedoes were being fired at the ship, one torpedo fired went off with a terrific explosion, so that his crew thought it was carrying a war head instead of a practice head. The torpedo had hit the propeller, which cut into the air chamber which exploded with such force that the propeller was damaged and many rivets leaked aft. The ship had to put back for repairs. Even a weapon without an explosive charge will damage battleships. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth is not a torpedo specialist; though he commanded submarines, he never captained one. He knows little or nothing about explosives detonating under water. I have had considerable experience of them in the Service and am not out of date. But I hate to say anything personal in this House. I should like to take this Debate to a higher plane. I think we ought to have a Minister of Defence who would go into the whole question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I fear that would require legislation.

Sir M. SUETER: I was about to say that the Air Estimates are far too low. I do not think in this House we should vote money for the repair of obsolete battleships.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on the Air Estimates.

Sir M. SUETER: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I only wanted to make a short reference to statements which have been previously made.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: Questions concerning military and civil aviation are, I feel, now being approached in the House and in the country from two entirely different points of view. There is the point of view held by persons who do fly, and the exactly opposite point of view held by the vast majority of people in the country who do not fly. This majority, in their heart of hearts, wish the aeroplane had never been invented. They regard it as a weapon presented to this world which will ultimately bring about the destruction of our civilisation. They remember the great development of the aeroplane in the War, they remember how bombs were dropped on women and children, how germs and gas were spread from the air, and they visualise some war in the future when all these dire abominations are going to be once again let loose. They believe, really, that this weapon has come for our destruction and not for our benefit. Sometimes they even go beyond that: they believe that pilots are, in the main, a bloody-minded people who are simply out to get at each other's throats and to drop bombs on women and children. To a certain extent this mentality has been helped by the Air Ministry, because out of every £30 we spend on the air, only £1 goes for civil aviation and £29 for military aviation.
Luckily, on the other side, there is the outlook of those of us who do fly, who are perhaps only 1 or 2 per cent. of the population of this country: we do not say to ourselves "I wish aviation had never been invented." We take the line, "Thank God it has been invented." We recall life 10 years ago when there was no civil aviation. Only eight, nine or 10 years ago there were no air lines and now we see almost a daily service to Egypt—a definite daily service is promised for next year—and a weekly service to Australia, or two services a week or more. We see two services a week to India and we realise
that in another 10 years we shall have a daily service. There will be services to all parts of the world. We appreciate the tremendous benefits that machines flying right down the middle of Africa or across India will bring ultimately to people who have, unfortunately, to live in those remote areas.
We should also realise the tremendous benefits the private flyer is going to bring to the world. Ten years ago in England and in Europe there was no private flying, there were no flying clubs, whereas we now see them springing up like mushrooms in all parts of the country. In perhaps 10 or 15 years' time, with this development still going on, we shall have a tremendous number of light aeroplanes. I believe that the young men and women of the next generation, instead of taking their holidays on the back of a motor bicycle, or in a light ear, visiting some seaside resort in this country, will go farther afield by the agency of the cheap light aeroplane which they will be able to buy for about the same price as they now pay for the motor cycle or car. They will go to France, Germany, Austria and to Italy for their summer holidays. When that time comes, and I think it will come in 10 or 15 years, we shall really have done something to bring about peace in Europe. These people will demand that all international barriers, all forbidden areas, all irritating customs, must go. Wherever they go they will make friends; they will meet other pilots and will get to know and understand each other's difficulties. Putting it bluntly, they will become thoroughly internationally-minded. There is that different outlook between those who fly and can visualise such a future and those who do not and who regard those who fly as bloody-minded people anxious to drop bombs on women and children. We believe that the aeroplane has come to stay, that it is not going to destroy our civilisation, and that it is finally going to bring untold benefits upon the Empire as a whole.
I want to make one suggestion to the Under-Secretary. I fully realise that for a very long time, and probably for all time, we shall have to have some form of military aviation. Without a police force in the air, there may be all kinds of trouble and abuse of civil aviation. I
do not want the Under-Secretary to think that I am one of those who wish all military aviation abolished. We are now spending £3,000,000 on military aviation. Suppose we had spent that money on civil aviation in this country, should we not be better off now, from the point of view of defending this country? I want to see a large number of new air services started from this country to the Continent, to Berlin, Vienna, Madrid, etc. It is rather a disgrace, and I think the House ought to know it. I understand from the Press that the Foreign Secretary is to fly to Berlin next week. So far as I know there are four air lines by which he can go; he can go by a Dutch, a French, a Belgian or a German machine, but he cannot go by a British machine, because we do not run an air service to Berlin.
I suggest that if instead of spending £3,000,000 extra on military aviation, we developed in this country an air service to every Continental country we should be better off, for two reasons. We should have a very large number of highly skilled pilots used to taking fast machines at 200 or 250 miles an hour and to finding their way across country in Europe in all conditions of weather. The professional pilot has to go, whether it is foggy, snowing, blowing a gale, raining or whatever the conditions he may find on his road, and he has to get to his destination. The Service pilots only fly when the weather is flyable. I do not condemn the Service pilots, who are magnificent, but when the weather is foggy or bad they do not fly, because the officer commanding does not want to risk the loss of machines or personnel. If we could increase the number of dirty weather pilots by increasing our air liners or developing fast freight machines flying every hour to the Continent, we should be much better off. We should have a very large number of potential day bombers. Everyone knows that the fast freight carrier, can be converted into a fast day bomber in from one to three hours, provided that it is properly designed.
I want to jump to another subject, it is our Imperial air routes. We have invested probably hundreds of millions in the development of railways, roads, canals and shipping, but we have practically spent nothing on developing our
Empire air routes. I suggest that the time is ripe when we should raise a big loan of £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 of money and spend it in the next two years on developing our Empire services, on doubling the number of aerodromes, with one for every 50 miles, improving the night flying facilities, providing beacons every 25 miles, improving wireless facilities, better weather reports, etc. The time will come in the next 10 years when we shall be compelled to do these things, so why not spend the money now, when we can borrow it cheaply, and have the benefit of it now.
I want to ask a question on Vote 4, with regard to the position of airmen who find themselves stationed in Iraq. I was over there the other day and I found a very legitimate "grouse". It was put to me that an airman in India, Egypt, Malaya, Transjordania or Palestine, or any other part of the British Empire was allowed to take his wife with him, but when he came to Iraq and was dumped down in the middle of the desert he was not allowed to have his wife. The reason given was that there were no married quarters provided at Baghdad. I see in this Vote 4 that we are spending about £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 on building a new aerodrome near Bagdad. Would it not be possible to spend first a little more and provide facilities for the married airmen in these new buildings? Many of them are young men of 25 or 27, newly married, who go out there for five years on end, and I am told some of them have children nearly five years old at home who have never seen their fathers. Would it not be possible for some arrangement to be made to help these poor chaps?
Another thing arises on Vote 3, and that is the old question of Farnborough. We are spending about £400,000 there. It has been put to me, and I am inclined to agree with it, that the money is largely wasted, that Farnborough is not much use, and in some cases is actually a drag on the manufacturing industry. Can my right hon. Friend tell the Committee of any single, practical, useful invention which has ever originated at Farnborough or been perfected there in the last five or 10 years? I think of four new inventions which have been of the greatest benefit to the aircraft industry, and all of them have
been invented and perfected by private enterprise. There are slots, there is the lifting under-carriage, there are flaps, and there is the variable pitch propeller. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should carry on with the excellent principle announced to-day and give a prize to the industry, and instead of a prize of £25,000 he should give a really big prize and divide this £400,000 into four sections and give four prizes—one to the firm that in the course of the year first produces the best variable pitch propeller, another to the firm which introduces the most successful type of flap, another £100,000 for the most successful lifting undercarriage, and another for the best slot. If he could do that, shut down Farnborough, and let private enterprise get to work aided by a substantial prize, I believe he would get some substantial results with this money.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I would not trespass on the indulgence of the Committee but for the fact that this is the only day in the whole year when we have the opportunity of bringing before this House, the Government and the country certain matters in connection with our aeronautical development which we think are of importance. On these particular matters I have had the benefit of the co-operation during the last few months of some of the most eminent members of the British aeronautical community; and we had a few weeks ago reached the stage when we thought we might give the benefit, if such it be, of our conclusions to the Government and the country. Therefore, with the indulgence of the House I would like to place the result of such work as we have undertaken at the disposal of my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet.
The matter which we have been investigating is the position of our internal air lines. Virtually we have none. We have one or two running throughout the year, one service per day—but one service per day is not an air line. We have a few which are running throughout the summer, several services a day. But the country at the moment is completely unorganised for this purpose. Why should we have internal air lines? I think there are many very good reasons why we should, but I will quote just a few of
the principal ones. In the first place, we cannot afford to have our commercial air communications—for passengers, goods and mails—behind those of the whole of the rest of the civilised world. Secondly—and hon. Members who impressed on the electors the importance of tariffs will agree with me immediately on this point—you cannot have a brisk export trade if you have no home consumption. That is exactly our difficulty in the aircraft industry to-day.
My right hon. Friend said this afternoon that, although we now have permission from the French Government to fly from Marseilles to Brindisi, it would not be possible for some time—probably not in 1935 and maybe not in 1936—to carry the whole of the passengers on our Imperial route through by air, and that they would have to continue to go by train. That is because we have no large aircraft in production that anybody can buy without waiting for the long period of design and construction—running in some cases, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) said, to seven years and for civil aircraft possibly two years. This position would be entirely changed if we had a well-organised internal airways system. Obviously, there is also the question of emergency. At the moment, we have not an adequate manufacturing industry if we should need immediate expansion. A large number of civil aircraft would employ many more craftsmen who could be utilised for the manufacture of Service machines in case of war. Further, conversion of these aircraft is effected in a few hours, and thus our internal air liners would materially assist us in that matter. What have we done in this respect? Well, virtually nothing. We have had an Aerodromes Advisory Board to which reference has been made earlier in the Debate. Although that committee is presided over by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), I think he will agree with me that it is not fulfilling its purpose. It is an advisory committee with no executive powers, and unfortunately it has descended to this abysmal depth, that it is regarded by all who think they ought to be in aeronautical endeavour—architects, civil engineers, and a hundred and one other professions—as a means of obtaining
some aeronautical distinction. As a result of that, the extinction of the committee is, I think, only a matter of a few weeks.
I should like to refer to a letter addressed to Lord Londonderry jointly by the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and the London Chamber of Commerce, in which they said they were impressed with the necessity for the setting up of a central authority, with statutory powers, which should have charge of the planning of the internal airway organisation, and on which the Government Departments concerned, air transport operators, and insurance and commercial interests, should be represented. But that is only one small part of the problem—the equipment of the air routes. The other part, and by far the more important financially and in every other way, is the provision of aerodromes. Some five years ago the Air Ministry investigated this problem and laid it down that every town or city with over 20,000 inhabitants should have an aerodrome. That would mean 275 aerodromes throughout the British Isles. But even working on that figure such important towns as Malvern, Boston, Chichester or Skipton would have no aerodrome, and it would leave entirely beyond the dividing line such aeronautical pygmies—which no doubt are Gullivers in some other walks of national life—as Carnarvon and Epping. If, therefore, we say that 300 aerodromes are required, we shall not be far away from the mark. What, after 16 years of civil aviation in this country, is the measure of our achievement? It is that we have 20 municipal aerodromes in existence, and for 10 more sites have been purchased. After 16 years the surface of the problem has scarcely been scratched—only to the extent of 10 per cent. so far as regards the air routes mentioned in the letter to Lord Londonderry to which I have referred.
We may assume that there are in this country some 2,000 miles of main air routes which need developing and equiping. At the moment there is only the short Continental route from London to Folkestone or Eastbourne, which is not, of course, in the same category. I should not like to omit reference to several municipalities which have taken this
matter up with zest. Among others I can refer to Bristol, Blackpool, Hull, Manchester, Portsmouth, Southampton and Walsall; but, if hon. Members will bear in mind the fact that only 10 per cent. of the problem has been solved in 16 years, they will agree with me that municipal enterprise in this respect has completely failed. It is not hard to see the reason. In the early days a municipal aerodrome was held out to be in some ways—heaven knows how—a financial asset. Those who possess them know perfectly well that an aerodrome is not a financial asset but a liability. If the towns owned the railway stations and the railway companies took the fares, there would be very little satisfaction for the towns in their ownership of the stations. That is exactly the same position.
Therefore we have to start and investigate this problem de novo, and we suggest that here is an opportunity for the Government to apply just those principles which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his recent platform duels with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said are acceptable to the Government, namely, the expenditure of public money on productive public works. We suggest in this particular instance that there should be first-class airports of 200 acres costing approximately, on an average, £150 an acre, or £30,000 for land, preparation of land at £100 an acre, £20,000, building and equipment of the airport, £75,000, or a total for each airport of £125,000. Probably there would be 40 first-class airports, and thus their total cost would be £5,000,000. In the second class, costing possibly two-thirds of this figure, £80,000, there would be 60 airports, and again approximately £5,000,000 would be necessary. The balance of 200 of the 300 which I said would be necessary we may regard as third class airports, costing a third of the cost of the first class airports, £40,000 each, and this would require £8,000,000. The equipment of all the necessary routes both with lighting and radio and with what is most important—and I have heard it mentioned several times here and I saw it in America—the teletype. The way they operate the machine in America enables you to go to any airport and see the teletype printing out the isobars on the
weather map, which is essential if you are to have a regular airline system.
All that could certainly be done at a figure of approximately £2,000,000. It might be much less if one went into details; I think that it should be less than that amount. The whole country could be organised in a first class style, and for ever, for a sum of approximately £20,000,000. If we regard that in the light of our other aeronautical expenditure, it is a very large sum, but if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members will look a little into the future they will realise that, if we reckon interest at as high a figure as 5 per cent., it is only £1,000,000 per year for that vast national asset. May I recall to hon. Members the fact that if the Road Fund had been inaugurated ten years earlier, and £20,000,000 had then been expended with commendable foresight much money would have been saved in these later years. The sum of £1,000,000, in view of the development in aircraft which I believe will take place in the next decade, will be as nothing, in the same way as £1,000,000 to the Road Fund is nothing to-day.
Therefore, I would say to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and to the Government, that we are here suggesting a sound policy for the expenditure of public money upon productive public works, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has indicated, that he will not fear investigation, so, if our proposals have any merit, we also shall be only too happy to give the benefit of such proposals as we have been able to elucidate. In conclusion, I should like to do what I omitted to do at the beginning of my speech, to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his admirable speech and to acknowledge his graceful reference to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. He has been an inspiration to British aviation, and I greatly appreciate the reference which my right hon. Friend made to the Postmaster-General.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. LYONS: I should like to associate myself with the general scheme adumbrated by my hon. Friend. It is an extraordinary thing that, although we have so many devices and plans in relation to industry, we have no national air-
way scheme to deal comprehensively with air traffic throughout the the country. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied with the progress that is being made with the ordinary aerodromes in the country to equip themselves to take air traffic. The municipal aerodromes of first class importance mentioned by my hon. Friend are totally inadequate to take night flying, facilities for which must exist if we are to have a proper air service throughout England. We should not hesitate to establish, if necessary, a National Airways Board for this purpose. A municipal aerodrome is to be opened by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary or the Noble Lord the Secretary of State in the next month or two in the city of Leicester which, I am glad to say, will be fully and adequately equipped for its purpose. It will be the first aerodrome north of Hatfield—apart from the private aerodrome of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), who has done so much for private aviation—to be properly equipped for night flying. If I am wrong I hope that I shall be corrected, but I believe there are no such aerodrome facilities elsewhere north of Hatfield.
We must get the people of this country air-minded and air-conscious, and one way to do that is to get rid once for all of any idea that air traffic is to be confined to one section of the community. For that reason I hope that at all the municipal aerodromes there will be free outdoor facilities to attract visitors who may go there having for the moment no interest in flying and no desire to fly, but being attracted by the open-air facilities. In that way much could be done to make the public air-minded and air-interested.
I want particularly to direct my remarks to some criticism that has been levelled against our Empire services. It is very easy to criticise and to lose one's sense of perspective in so doing. We ought to derive a good deal of satisfaction from the fact that, however necessary, there may be temptation for the Royal Air Force particularly to establish itself, it is vitally important to see substantial progress in civil aviation. Remarkable progress has been made in the comparatively short time that the schemes have been in existence. I hope there will be
no divorcement at all between civil and military aviation in the department of the Air Ministry. We often hear it said that if it did come about things would be very much better, but nobody ever indicates to what department civil aviation should go or how you could have duality of research, duality of invention and duality of staff. I hope that for the time being and, indeed, for a long while to come there will be no question of divorcing these two branches.
In the ten years or so that Imperial Airways have been in existence they have established a system of air traffic throughout the Empire which I have found on personal examination on a journey from Croydon to Capetown and back is very little short of an amazing achievement, when you consider the difficulties under which they have laboured and the wholly different aspect which any route such as Croydon to Capetown presents as compared with that, say, from New York to San Francisco. There is no real comparison, in my humble view, between a route across one country, without any difficulties of customs and without any distinction of ownership or control, and a journey such as Imperial Airways undertakes from Croydon to Capetown, through varying countries with different climatic conditions and through a diversity of control and customs. I would like to remind the House that the real mandate of Imperial Airways is that from year to year it has exercised its best endeavours to make the service self-supporting and with a very limited and annually reducing subsidy. We know that for the first time this subsidy is going to be slightly increased in 1935 and that that increase is due mainly to the urgent necessity of providing for the improvement and development of the ground organisation on Empire routes and to facilitate flying by night as well as by day. In the service that now exists every night is spent on land. I hope, when the new scheme which my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary adumbrated in the House just before Christmas comes into force, there will be a complete linking up with the Empire by means of night flying as well as by day which will require the beaconing of Africa.
I congratulate the Department on the fact that there is a regular twice- 
weekly service to the uttermost extent of the Empire by the all-British Imperial Airways Service, which can hold its head as high as any transport service throughout the world as a masterpiece of efficient and safe organisation, with a perfected system of ground work. It is perfectly true that some of the machines are five or six years old, and I would hope that the subsidy would never be kept up if it meant flying with obsolete machines. But new machines must be ready and available, and, if there be one service in regard to which a subsidy is really worth while and which is a national investment, it is a subsidy to help to bring together more than anything else the far distant parts of the Empire by a regular service, based on a safe and efficient system.
I think we should realise more than ever before what a vital part air transport is playing in the affairs of the Empire and the immense potentialities which it has in bringing nation to nation in common aims and aspirations. The two great trunk routes now operating in the British Empire, one from London right across the Mediterranean and through Africa down to Capetown, and the other through the Near and Middle East to India, Burma and Australia, make a total of something like 21,000 miles, over which regular services are operating with unfailing accuracy. I had personal experience of that accuracy when on my recent journey from Croydon to Capetown and back. The scheduled time of departure was never departed from, and at no time was there any delay at all in leaving any one of the stations according to the time schedule. It is a trait in regard to our outlook on these matters to criticise and try to depreciate home activities, but I do not think we ought to lose our proper sense of perspective. We hear glib talk about 250 miles an hour which other machines are said to do, but it is a totally exaggerated speed. What can be done in an isolated occasional air race cannot be compared with a bi-weekly regular and safe passenger service throughout the Empire.
I believe when the time comes, it will be found that the romance of this century has been the work done by the services of Imperial Airways, fostered by the Air
Ministry, which will be judged to be one of the outstanding achievements, and which has been realised, moreover, in a comparatively short time. We have heard with a good deal of pleasure that it has been decided that within two years all first class mails shall be carried by air mail throughout the Empire. I hope we shall properly appreciate the great step that this means. Imperial Airways, which has been associated with the Department of State responsible for the air service, has received a good deal of criticism, but when that criticism is considered I believe it will be found that nowhere in the world, with such a small amount of public assistance, is there the same reliable service as is now carried on from England right through the Empire by that service. If you begin to compare this small expenditure year by year with the expenditure in America on the pan-American system or with that in any other Continental country, it will be found that this country is running this air transport throughout the Empire at an infinitely smaller cost than that of any other country in which air services operate.
I do hope that while we declare ourselves to be the very first to come into any convention which will bring peace throughout the world by the universal limitation of air armaments, we shall equally see that we are never behind in the matter of inventions or scientific achievements which will help to make more safe, more popular and more efficient and cheap, the air services from this country throughout the Empire, by means of a regular system of air transport lines.

12.40 a.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: It is a serious matter that I should feel compelled to inflict a speech on the House at this late hour of the night. I shall not keep hon. Members very long. As the hon. Member for Willesden (Mrs. Tate) is not in the House, I think I can with safety join in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Air on the admirable speech in which he introduced the Estimates He has set a very high standard for his speeches and he is fully maintaining that standard. I am particularly anxious to say that, because there was at least one gap in the statement he made, which I
feel is a serious one, and which was referred to very cogently by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). Before I come to that, however, I would like to refer to the main subject of the Estimates for the defence of this country. We have heard speeches, and we have had one from the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) which suggests that the situation in which we find ourselves is not a grave situation. I believe that public opinion, and the great majority of this House, regard the mission on which the Foreign Secretary is going as extremely grave. I hope that the language which the right hon. Gentleman uses to the Government in Berlin will be very clear, and very precise, and that he will ask for very clear and precise answers. We want to know where Germany stands in this matter of collective security, and, if we do not get satisfactory answers on that subject, I hope we shall make very clear to that Government the course we propose to take. If a satisfactory answer cannot be got from the German Government at the present time, I think that His Majesty's Government may feel assured of the support of the great majority of this House and country on any measure that they may have to take.
I am glad to be able to congratulate the Under-Secretary whole-heartedly on the development of the Empire services which he outlined in his speech. That seemed to me extremely satisfactory, and I congratulate the Government also. Last year I called attention to the fact that the Colonial contribution to Imperial Airways was out of proportion to the revenues of the Colonies, and quite out of proportion to the subsidy paid by the Government. This is a burden on the very poorest taxpayers of the Empire—the African taxpayers. I hope that attention has been given to this matter by the Government. Last year the Under-Secretary promised to look into the matter, and I want to know whether any attention has been given to it.
I fear I shall have to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to that part of his speech in which he dealt with the Aerodrome Advisory Board. He failed to deal with what we hope are to be the activities of the new Director-General of Civil Aviation, or the officer promoted to that title and rank. I am
sure that he must recognise that in this matter of controlling and co-ordinating the development of civil aviation in this country, his Department has a record for indifference and inefficiency which has seldom been equalled and never surpassed. So far as I can see, no attention has been paid since the war to the proper development of aerodromes, the co-ordination of aerodromes, the prevention of overlapping in services, and efficiency in every form which should be the business of the Ministry and cannot be the business of anybody else. This has been left to haphazard development, with the result that we are not having the services and the facilities we should have. By this haphazard method a general feeling is being created against the needs of civil aviation and that is extremely unfortunate. This method of trying one aerodrome, and then getting compulsory powers to try another because the first is not in the right place, is creating a feeling which is extremely bad for the interests of aviation, and I hope that before the discussion closes the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that the inefficiency of the system hitherto pursued is going to be corrected. In Cheshire the feeling created on this subject is intense.
The City of Manchester is, of course, entitled to develop an aerodrome equal to its needs. There is no question about that. I agree with the hon. Member for Duddeston when he says that Manchester has shown, in company with a few other cities, activity and foresight in this matter. But since the war the City of Manchester has spent money on one aerodrome after another, never apparently receiving adequate advice. In this last proposal to acquire a large port in the County of Cheshire no case was put forward that the county could understand. I do not wish to comment on the details of the question, because it is the subject of an appeal to the courts, but I am entitled to comment on the methods which have been pursued. When this proposal was put forward an inquiry was held. No attempt was made to show that the proposed aerodrome was part of a system which would benefit neighbouring towns, or that adequate services could be secured for it. There was only a question of some factory chimneys and the com-
parative suitability of the two sites, and, when that was disposed of, the compulsory order was made.
Bad blood is created by action of that kind and that is a serious matter for aviation, which we do not want to be hindered or handicapped in any way. These activities proceed without direction or plan from the Ministry; it is not only that there is no policy, that there is the very serious fact that this kind of thing is telling against aviation in this country, but the Act under which these powers are assumed is not an Act which was originally intended for this purpose. It is an Act intended to create employment. In these inquiries no one says a word about employment. This Act is being used for a different purpose from what Parliament intended. Feeling about it is great and, naturally, there are appeals to the courts. If the Ministry had existed in Biblical times, David would have had no difficulty about Naboth's vineyard, he would simply have said: "I want to turn it into an aerodrome." That is the kind of impression that is being created in different parts of the country. I hope the Under-Secretary understands that in this matter his Department has really a shameful record and that the time has come to put that record right. I hope too that he will now realise that the Aerodrome Advisory Board exists to be used. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) is in his place. I wonder how much use is made of that Board of which he is chairman. I am told that after all these years it has been instructed to prepare a broad survey of the aerodrome requirements of this country. That should have been done years ago, but inasmuch as it is being done now will he assure us that the report will be expedited and that he will desist from these haphazard and arbitrary orders until this survey is carried out.

12.51 a.m.

Lord APSLEY: The many points covered in the excellent and constructive speeches which we have had this evening will convince hon. Members that there is something important in these particular Estimates, and that leads me to make a suggestion to the Under-Secretary. In view of the importance of these Esti-
mates which interest all parties with the exception of the hon. Members who may be sitting below me, would they not be better served if in future the Air Estimates were discussed under two headings on two different days. On one day the Service Estimates could be discussed, particularly if Front Bench speeches are going to be delivered on matters of international importance and foreign policy, and then there would be time to discuss questions of detail, Army co-operation, and the Air Service itself. To confuse that with civil aviation, makes it impossible for the Under-Secretary to bring the proper mind to bear on the subject, and it must make an enormous difficulty for the right hon. Gentleman to reply. I must confess I do not know how he does it. He has a wonderful mind for detail, and he gives his reply in a wonderful way, but it must be a strain on his mind, and I would seriously suggest that in future the Civil Estimates should be taken on another day and under a different heading altogether.
I wish to discuss a matter which we have had no opportunity of discussing at all, and it comes under Vote A. I have been sitting recently in the fire of a naval battle which has been waged from one bench to another. The Senior Service have always been able to look after themselves in the House, but the Army never get a look in, and we have not had a word on Army co-operation. There is another matter. On the Army Estimates you can get a complete account of each unit, but on the Air Estimates we never get any such account. We cannot tell how many bombing squadrons there are and how much each cost; we cannot tell how many fighting squadrons there are and how much they cost, nor can we tell how many Army squadrons there are, and there is nothing at all about Army co-operation. I believe that there are only two such squadrons in this country. I do say, as a mere soldier, that when it comes to operation it is impossible to get any Air Force co-operation whatever to be of any value. Sometimes you can get that and sometimes you cannot. We have had great difficulty in getting information from the Army co-operation squadrons when we were operating with them. I notice in Vote A there is mention of a new observers corps, and I
believe that is very necessary as far as the Army is concerned. I suggest that more co-operation with the Army should be encouraged. I believe that a certain number of Air Force officers are attached to the Army for a short time. I am told, however, that when they return to the Air Force they are attached to bombing and fighting squadrons and have nothing to do with the Army co-operation. It takes time to train an observer.
Let me give an instance of what happened at the last manoeuvres. A section of mine was on patrol, and they saw a column of smoke. They investigated and found the house of an officer on fire. They assisted in bringing the ponies from the stables and after a time the butler told them—as the officer was away on manoeuvres—that they had got all the valuable things from the house, that the rest were only wedding presents and that both they and the house were fully insured, that the fire brigade had been sent for, and that nothing further could be done. That was at 10 o'clock in the morning, and at 3 o'clock in the afternoon after the patrols had come in we received an air report stating that a column of dust had been seen indicating a battalion of enemy tanks, and we were asked to confirm it. We did not believe in the column of dust as it had been raining intermittently all day. Such a matter of natural history would hardly cross the mind of a highly trained observer of the Royal Air Force so we asked whether another aeroplane could be sent a little bit lower down to see whether the house was still burning. They sent a machine and found that it was still burning and therefore we did not go out. There are many instances I could give affecting the co-operation squadrons. I do not know how the gunners feel on this matter. That is a department into which I have not had time to go. We have not sufficient contact. They never tell us when the enemy planes are patrolling, whether our camouflage is effective, and where the various units are. I think that these matters should be taken into account without any delay.
There is a further question I should like to raise. It is in regard to autogyros. What is the attitude of the Air Ministry with regard to them. Do they look upon them because they are flying machines as
machines which can only be administered by the Air Force and that the Army cannot have them? Could the Artillery be allowed to run autogyros themselves and be able to pay civilian mechanics to run them as an Army weapon? If it is merely a matter of inter-departmental jealousy, this practice might do infinite harm, but the boot is not only on one leg. I cannot myself see that because it is a flying machine it must come under the Royal Air Force.
I now come to a question that is of great importance, namely, anti-aircraft guns. I have my own view on the subject, but it may be entirely wrong. I believe that the importance of anti-aircraft defence is so great, and its correlation with aircraft work so close, that only one authority can run anti-aircraft defence, and that is the Air Ministry. Everything to do with it should be run in close correlation with the Air Ministry. They are the people who get the information and will have to make the decisions. Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the anti-aircraft are using shrapnel or high explosive? I do not know whether the Air Ministry take any interest in this matter. Modern aircraft—low-winged monoplanes—is immune from shrapnel, and high explosive is the only thing that can be used successfully. Inaccurate anti-aircraft fire is worse than useless. To delegate this work to the Territorial Army is—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Noble Lord has now made it quite clear that this is a matter for the Army Estimates.

Lord APSLEY: I bow to your Ruling, but I do want to know whether the Under-Secretary can take it on the Air Force Vote, because if he can it will relieve the country of a very great responsibility. It is just as though the Navy were relying for their submarine protection on the coastguard service. I hope that the Air Council and the Air Ministry will consider with great attention whether some more concentrated system of anti-aircraft defence cannot be brought together and run by the Air Ministry so as to secure efficiency.

1.3 a.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: At this hour of the morning, I am sure that the Committee
does not want me to deal at greater length than necessary with the several subjects under discussion. Although we have had a great many speeches, I do not think that very many points have been put. Perhaps the Noble Lord who has just sat down concentrated more questions into his last speech than I have had put to me for some time. His last question is, of course, not one which I can answer, but I can say that there is a great deal of co-operation between anti-aircraft units and the Air Force, and continually we have them coming to our different stations and squadrons and working in the closest co-operation. I have been attacked once more on the subject of this aerodrome at Ringway, and, as the hon. Member who raised the question rightly said, the matter being sub judice, it would not be in any way proper for me to refer to it. I do not want to shirk the issue. The hon. Member said that there has not been enough planning in the past, and that is quite right. Naturally, at the beginning—flying is not a very old science, and civil aviation is not very old—there was not enough planning. But, of course, we have always taken the line that we want as many aerodromes as possible, and certainly big towns and cities all over the country should have their aerodromes. Whether Manchester should or should not have this particular aerodrome is not the question. It is the location that the hon. Member complains about. We have now got this Aerodrome Advisory Board, and we are relying very much on their help. As I have said, we have no desire to hinder local authorities. We give them guidance when they ask for it.

Sir E. GRIGG: It is that very important point which I wish to make. If the Air Ministry has not got the powers it requires for co-ordinating development, will the Under-Secretary come to this House and ask for them?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would require legislation.

Sir P. SASSOON: We are discussing the present situation. I will now pass to the speech of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), to which I listened with great interest. There is only one point on which I do not agree with him, and that is that municipal
aerodromes are a liability. They may be an expense, but they are not a liability, any more than a railway station is a liability. In the future, people will, I think, go to towns by air instead of by train, and, then, if they cannot get there by air, the lack of an aerodrome will be a very great liability. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) will perhaps allow me to write to him about the question of married quarters. He was, however, wrong about the period of service, which is only two years. If there are any other questions which I do not answer, perhaps hon. Members will let me write to them about them or take the first opportunity I can of giving an answer. The subject of the fast mail carrier was met by the announcement which I made to-day. I was not in the House, unfortunately, when the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut. -Colonel Moore-Brabazon) was speaking, but I was told that he once more repeated his desire to see a divorce between civil aviation and military aviation. We have heard him before, of course, elaborate the theme that civil aviation should be put under the Board of Trade. I remember just before Christmas coming into the House on a Friday when the mercantile marine was under discussion, and Member after Member complained about the position of the mercantile marine under the Board of Trade and described it as the Cinderella of the Board of Trade. Is it into the cruel and callous hands of the President of the Board of Trade that the hon. and gallant Member would like to confide the poor department of civil aviation?

Lieut. Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I have always proposed that it should be put under the Minister of Transport, but as the present Minister of Transport seems to be rather anti-motorist he might be anti-air.

Sir P. SASSOON: The solution is to leave it under the Air Ministry. The very excellent and interesting speech of the hon. Member for Willesden (Mrs. Tate) must be admired for its enthusiasm and technical knowledge. She described my speech as a soporific, but improved the situation when she described me as a contortionist, so that what I gain on the swings I certainly lose on
the roundabounts. I have taken notice and note of all the things she asked me to look into. Among many things she stressed was that all-important question of speed. I know how important speed is and how essential it is in the development of civil aircraft. I heard only the other day that the pace of transport did not vary from the days of Julius Caesar to the reign of Queen Victoria—that the quadriga of early days was speedier than the post-chaise of Victorian times, which of course, is true. But certainly we are making up for lost time and trying to crowd into a few years the leeway of twenty centuries. Therefore, we have other things to think of, and, as far as the new machines of Imperial Airways are concerned, when she knows it, I hope the hon. Lady will have no complaint about their speed.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) put up some schemes which he had kindly told me about beforehand. It is perhaps rather too late at this hour to go into them, but I will consider them and let him know what we think about these interesting proposals. I think I have now dealt with all the points that require an immediate answer, and I hope I have clarified points where clarification was needed. Let me say I think we have had a most instructive and stimulating debate, and there have been made many valuable contributions upon which we can work. I trust that after the interesting discussion that we have had the House will now give me the Votes.

Question, "That a number, not exceeding 31,000, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service," put, and negatived.

PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,547,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will comes in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,145,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, Repairs, and
Lands, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUDING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,002,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £595,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, the sum of £6,233,913 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, the sum of £223,442,150 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes after One o'Clock.